This was my first time contributing to Wikipedia. I haven’t thought about editing an article in Wikipedia because I never felt the need to and didn’t know the purpose. In the past, I’ve seen people make troll edits on Wikipedia and that is what I thought it was known for, being unreliable. This assignment has taught me the importance of online communities and contributing. Although it seems like a small change, it has a major impact. The little things we make on online communities will be seen. I saw the theories in class being applied. The importance of increasing engagement and making changes to accommodate success.
I edited an article on London Fog beverage. From contributing, I actually learned how Wikipedia actually works and removed my previous biases and beliefs. The contributors put effort into using reliable sources and making Wikipedia a better site. Although Wikipedia does have a reputation for being unreliable, there are articles in the public that people put a lot of time and research into. From my experience and training, Wiki does make an effort to ensure their articles are reliable with administrators and WikiEdu. Since Wikipedia is an online community, there will always be people that won’t follow the norms. Like all online communities, Wikipedia does make an effort to ensure the norms are being followed with the sidebar links.
Learning about motivation in lecture, I could view why people continue to contribute to Wikipedia. My article was on a topic that I was highly interested in. The rewards for contributing are mainly intrinsic. I had a great experience doing research on the London Fog, I learned more facts about it and was able to share the same to others. One thing that I found difficult was searching for relevant and reliable sources to back up the facts. It wasn’t a topic with much academic research, the relevant sources were mainly trustworthy newspapers. This effort could also discourage members to continue contributing. Which is why motivation is important, if the rewards are great it would increase the engagement and contribution. Wikipedia could enforce a better reward factor to incentivize contributors and to make their effort feel worthwhile. For me, my motivation was partly because it was a class assignment, but I would come back to Wikipedia because of the intrinsic rewards. With the world being so complex and broad, there are topics that people will be interested in. It felt satisfying getting to publish my work and effort on Wikipedia. The information I put out there will be read by others and they will obtain new information.
To add on, personally, I would contribute again to Wikipedia because I think information is so powerful and Wikipedia is a great source for people. Since Wikipedia is big, I believe contributing to Wikipedia is impactful. Many people are checking Wikipedia constantly. After my article was posted, it was edited by a user a day later. I was surprised to see how quick it took for someone to read and edit my article. I didn't realize how often someone would check on this stub. It is not just administrators that correct the articles. Contributors that are committed to do as well. I think that’s one reason that makes Wikipedia unique. It is such a big and popular place to start research for information. There are probably over thousands of people that contribute to Wikipedia and they contribute their knowledge and time to these articles. There are more than one million articles on Wikipedia so there’s always a topic for someone to be working on. I remember spending more than an hour searching for a stub because there were just so many options.
Being a newcomer, WikiEdu is a great place for people to start learning how to contribute to the community. It goes over the policies, how to use Wiki, exercises, and many more resources for people to start. WikiEdu was helpful for me when I needed further instructions or missed something said in the lecture/section. It is a great resource to gain practice before starting to contribute. With WikiEdu I think it greatly encouraged the right behavior. It gives us step by step instructions on how to avoid plagiarism, peer reviews, and editing in general. It makes the norms clear which is great for avoiding conflict and disruption.
I think Wikipedia should remind contributors about the norms. I noticed that before I publish a change, Wikipedia just says you’re agreeing to the terms, CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the hyperlink. To make it more serious, Wikipedia could have contributors click the links before they are able to publish it. This would give them the chance to acknowledge the norms and policies. The limitation of this is that it creates an extra step and effort for contributors. It could lead to decreased engagement.
From the theories, the commitment individuals have are mainly identity based because contributions mainly edit articles based on their interests. One thing Wikipedia can strengthen their contributions commitment is by giving them the opportunity to connect with other contributors. The talk page seems too public to chat. Wikipedia could create a private chat space for contributors that want to research and edit together, this would enhance the bonds based commitment as well. In my experience, it would’ve been easier to have another person with the same interest as me assist with the research. It would be a connecting and contributing opportunity. Creating more kinds of bonds would also increase the commitment for members.
Overall, it was a great experience to be involved in an online community. I applied the concepts from class into a space. It put me in the shoes of a contributor and gave me insights on what works and what doesn’t. Understanding norms, commitment, motivation, and newcomers are all essential to a successful/thriving online community.