User:Cdunbarc/Reflection
Online Communities COMM 4625 Reflection
Experiencing Wikipedia in this class was an exercise in conscious interaction with a familiar space from a new perspective. As a newcomer to the Wikipedia editing sphere, I felt particularly inexperienced even though I’ve probably read hundreds of Wikipedia articles throughout my academic career. The general style and attitude of a Wikipedia contribution seems easy to pin down and imitate, but actually competently going about it is an entirely different matter with many different considerations in terms of rules for users and guidelines for writing and intent. Although my interactions with other users in this space were mostly with classmates, I did get a sense of the community from reading the guidelines, through the functions and format of Wikipedia, and through checking with other common practices.
Wikipedia was a great community to work with as an example of good community design [needs copy edit]. The strong sense of identity that Wikipedians share is an effective example of good community design that dictates user interactions and contributions with a heavy emphasis on identity based commitment and established guidelines and processes. I didn't ever feel like I was a part of Wikipedia even when I had become a contributor simply because the standards for being an effective contributor are consistently set so high. Articles are always at risk of being removed or criticized if they fall short of being perfect, and the criteria for an acceptable article is already set very high. This sort of newcomer barrier is a more accessible version of the barrier set at communities like Debian[1], where members are contained in a “new member’s corner” at first before they are trusted to make contributions to Debian. This is a way of ensuring that only the most trusted members are let through to contribute packages to Debian. Wikipedia works in a similar way, but on an article-by-article basis rather than by user or by total contributions (at least as a newcomer, that was my impression). Since many people contribute articles and then sign off on Wikipedia, it's more important to curate the content being created so that it is good instead of it simply being available. This is why more seasoned members patrol new pages to ensure they are up to the standards that Wikipedia has set as a community.
On Wikipedia, the moderation and community governance aspects of the website are handled in much the same way as simply creating and editing articles. Members are encouraged to contribute to and write articles that need to be written. Using documentation such as the Editing basics [2], you are able to get a sense for how the community moderates content at first through very specific and demanding criteria for free contribution. There is also the Requested Articles page which allows users to view content that needs a page and work on more focused contribution. All articles must be edited and created adhering to the same basic core content policies: Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. These three points are specific and guided enough to encourage users to be more diligent and strict with their contributions and to ensure that the main ideology behind Wikipedia is upheld.[needs copy edit] This culture of strictness is in part what serves as informal moderation from average or seasoned users without special admin permissions. The community governance is a large part of how newcomers and new content are managed on a fundamental, crowdsourced sort of level. It's unlikely that as a newcomer I would be engaging with an arbitration committee or an admin on Wikipedia and see my content or contributions moderated that way.
I feel like Wikipedia has a lot of room to grow after taking the time to contribute there. Doing so, even for a topic that I was passionate about, was a little bit tedious. It also felt a little bit like a limitation that I was passionate about the articles I was writing because even while maintaining objectivity and neutrality, I did feel like simply the act of creating the article that I did, EarthQuaker Devices, I was already under suspicion from other users.[needs copy edit] This may be a feeling of other users as well, and it may lead to people leaving Wikipedia after one contribution rather than feeling comfortable and motivated enough to stay. My suggestions for relieving this lie within the expansion of the account system to one that would accommodate for readers as well as editors. By encouraging people to have online pseudonyms attached to reading Wikipedia and encouraging participation on Talk pages, maybe people would feel a little bit more grounded when they actually do begin editing and creating pages. It's entirely possible that the tension could still be there because of the standards for a perfect article, but I do believe that people would form a higher degree of bond with the community as a whole and feel more ownership of their contributions.
Overall, Wikipedia was a very effective example of community moderation and governance coming together to form a structured and strict community. However, that structure has led to a prolific set of users that are dedicated and guided through the process by these guidelines. The strictness really isn't that demanding when you engage it with writing[clarification needed] and with a good set of experience with Wikipedia, even if it is almost daunting at first to have to be initiated in some form to write something online these days. Those standards being community enforced with seemingly few instances of trolling or people getting upset (at least from a newcomer or readers' eyes)[needs copy edit] is something that isn't that common on the web these days when you think about it. It's rare that a community is structured so strongly around an identity as admirable as Wikipedia's user identity, and that it's harnessed to some degree of productivity. Maybe that's just me speaking from my different experience with the web and with communities on it, or maybe that's because Wikipedia is truly a special place. It would have to be to survive the seemingly inevitable ejection of users to a different, sleeker site that so many other communities face at some point after wearing out their welcome with users. I'm glad that I got the chance to contribute here, and I feel like I will be less intimidated when editing in the future. Overall, Wikipedia has shown me a very different side of the web that I'm used to, and it's a side that I feel like any community would be capable of with the right messaging and the right platform for accessibility and growth.