User:Hrennen/reflection

Special:diff/924441514 Sydne added grammar edits and ideas about how to make the sections more specific

Special:permalink/924441514 - user

Carson Beach, South Boston

“Don’t bite the newcomer” (Kraut, 2012, p. 206), is the policy that Wikipedia has implemented when trying to retain new users and expand their community. This message is directed at members who have already contributed and encouraging them to welcome new users. Wikipedia is a community that has been the norm for me throughout my entire academic life. I have always used it much like many other young scholars, to quickly research information on anything that came to mind. I knew that I had the ability to edit the website, but I had never participated in it until professor Reagle’s Online Community class. Upon entering the class, I created an account and was tasked to contribute my own content. After initially struggling to think of a topic, I decided to expand on the already existing page about Carson Beach. With the help of the Northeastern online library database, I was able to find articles from the Boston Globe archives that covered different events at the beach throughout time. This helped to create a notable events section. The process of adding content was not as overwhelming as I initially believed it to be because I felt welcomed by the existing community. Wikipedia is also attractive to new users because its low barrier of entry, it is free to contribute. Lastly, my experience on Wikipedia has made me feel that polling is the best option to make decisions within the community.

My first experience on Wikipedia was when I posted on professor Reagle’s talk page. I had no idea how the community worked and I actually had to stop by his office to learn how to do this simple task. After going through the different manuals (RTFM) I learned more about how to navigate the page and perform the tasks that were required. I always had a positive experience throughout the different interactions, from posting my own content and receiving the feedback of others, editing classmates pages and small interactions with other Wikipedians. My experience on this community reminded me of design claim 18 from Kraut and Resnick which states, “When newcomers have friendly interactions with existing community members soon after joining a community, they are more likely to stay longer” (Kraut, 2012, p. 208). Facebook is an example of a community that promotes new members to stay. Their suggested friends page allows users to scroll through a list of other people who have mutual friends with you and makes it easy for you to add these people to be your friend. This page is helpful for newcomers who are trying to build their profile from scratch and encourages them to stay on the website.

Although Wikipedia does not have a suggested friends page, I did feel welcomed based on my interactions on the platform. It may be skewed because professor Reagle and my classmates were the only people who I interacted with, but they were always encouraging of the content that I was contributing and giving good ideas to improve. I also enjoyed giving thanks on Carson Beach’s history page to other users who had contributed to the page before I did. Giving wikilove is a cool feature that gave me a bond with other members. Lastly, I reached out to another user, UserJJMC89, and left a message letting them know who I was, asking how they moved my article from a user talk page in the main space to a regular page who had edited the page and thanked them for the edits on the page. Even though this user has not responded to me, I still feel I had a positive interaction because they fixed my formatting error, which I was struggling with. They did not ask for anything in return, they were just doing it for to better the encyclopedia as a whole.

Along with having its users keeping good faith in mind for their interactions with new members, my Wikipedia experience was positive because of the moderation on the pricing system. In a few of my other classes this semester, I had to subscribe to the New York Times and purchase costly Harvard Business School course packs along with the price of online textbooks. This is expensive and I feel like I need to consume an excess amount of information to make it pay off. However, since Wikipedia is free to sign up and use along with the free use of the online resources, it gave me a positive attitude when going through the work. Since it was free it felt welcoming and not like a mandated action to participate. All that was needed was an email for a username and I could edit as much as I wanted to. My experience with the free aspect of wikipedia is similar to what was written about explicit and implicit pricing in in The Virtues of Moderation. An example of explicit is “World of Warcraft’s $14.99 per month subscription fee” (Grimmlemann, 2015, p. 57). Subscription based websites and streaming services are increasingly popular trend and they serve a good purpose, but to me that increases the value of a free platform. With all of the competition for subscriptions to drive different companies sales goals, it is refreshing to see this platform maintain its free approach. Having low barriers on pricing allows for a wider range of people to contribute and gives everybody a stronger bond because your financial background has nothing to do with your contribution.

Implicit pricing involves other forms of sacrifice. Grimmelmann (2015) talks about how sacrifice within the community is not always monetary. He writes, “Twitter’s abuse-reporting process is long and involved, so anyone who wants to report abuse must pay with their time” ( p. 57). Wikipedia is similar to Twitter in that for the most part its users monitor other users and make sure everybody keeps good faith. To committed members they do not only spend their time reporting abuse, they also pay their time to improve other users content. I felt this implicit payment when UserJJMC89 took time to edit my page so it would stay in the mainspace. This person did not have to make an edit but felt affection to the community and wanted to help out other members just like he had done to him before.

Wikipedia has had a large debate over how to govern its community. Decisions on bans for the most part have been made by the community rather than the Wikimedia Foundation. However, there is a conflict over the correct way to come to a decision. After learning about how the community works, I agree with the type of decision making that the sight has currently been using, “Consensus is the preferred method of making decisions at Wikipedia” (Reagle, 2010, p. 7). He continues to write about how polling is one of the methods used in the consensus process. Polling is an effective tactic because not only does it allow for the user to cast their vote, but they also have space to give their opinion on the topic in a discussion board form. Other members can see what has been said and use it to form their own opinion. This is the best form of governing the space because if the website is truly an equal platform than users need to be able to voice their opinions on more than just a vote. Users are not shy of voicing their opinions as I have seen with a random user editing my page and listening to the spirited interactions that my classmates have had. From my perspective, the platform thrives on interaction and having a poll with feedback is the best way for users to communicate with each other on major issues.

Reagle writes that issues that can come with polling include discouraging consensus and encouraging groupthink. I would dispute the claims that these are the side effects of polling. I believe the opposite of the claim that people who share their thoughts are discouraging consensus. If members were not allowed to do anything more than just cast a vote, then there may be arguments in the case that are never thought about, which would lead to misinformed voters. Allowing for users to contribute comments will bring all aspects of the problem to the table. Polling does not encourage groupthink because I have faith in wikipedians that when people share their opinions. Others will not form groups of that same opinion just because they see a large group of people sharing it. Wikipedians are independent and educated enough to have their own point of view, they may take some of what others say to make an informed decision, but they will not make this decision solely because it is what the group thinks.

I had a positive experience in my first interaction on Wikipedia. As a newcomer, I definitely felt the warmth from veterans of the platform. Kraut’s design claim that newcomers who feel welcomed are more willing to stay is a statement that accurately describes my interaction. I am encouraged to continue to use the platform form my own leisure in the future. Wikipedia was also appealing to me because of its free entry. Not having to give the company my credit card number to contribute is a plus and makes me gain their trust. Lastly, I recommend that the platform continue to use polling to come to a consensus when it comes to decision making because it allows for everybody's voices to be heard.

Citations

Grimmlemann, James. “The Virtues of Moderation.” Virtures of Moderation, 2015, yjolt.org/sites/default/files/grimmelmann_the-virtues-of-moderation_0.pdf.

Kraut, Robert E. “Building Successful Online Communities - Evidence-Based: Social Design.” Amazon, MIT Press, 2016,

Reagle, Joesph. “Chapter 5 §1The Challenges of Consensus.” 5 The Challenges of Consensus, 21 Sept. 2011, reagle.org/joseph/2010/gfc/chapter-5.html.