"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity" - Hanlon's razor. This is a great tool Wikipedia users and moderators can use to better the community. Through a semester-long project in a class of my peers, we each attempted to create the perfect article. Although we had been familiar with the idea of Wikipedia as users, most of us had never been on the contribution side. Through this class, I learned how to write content that followed the written rules of the website, as well as abide by the social norms of the online community. I would say that through my time editing, fixing, and creating, I have become a member of this online community.
Newcomers edit
According to Kraut and Resnick [1](2011) in online communities, newcomers play an important role of being a source of innovation, new ideas, and work procedures or other resources that the group needs (p. 179). This is especially true for Wikipedia, which means to be a quick source of information. The problem though is the lack of experience newcomers have in a group. Wikipedia has a policy called "Don't Bite the Newcomer", meaning that if a newcomer breaks a rule or norm it is up to the community to assume good faith and try to correct the mistake in a way that won't turn the newcomer away from the site. My experience varies from most people’s probably due to the fact that I was walked through everything I did by someone who literally wrote the book on it – Professor Joseph Reagle. My Online Communities class had a focus on creating or establishing a "perfect article" on Wikipedia. My only existing experience with Wikipedia prior to this was running a quick search on something to get a general idea. Through this class, I have made a profile, edited existing pages, and worked closely to establish a perfect article. None of this could have been completed without "reading the fine manual". RTFM is a phrase that refers to what steps a newcomer should take to become familiar with an online community before they start contributing or breaking social norms within the community.[citation needed] As we learned from Kraut and Resnick (2011), social norms are a set of rules that are not necessarily told explicitly, but are noticeable when broken. As a newcomer, my number one goal was to successfully immerse myself into the community without stepping on any toes.
My Experience edit
For my Wikipedia page, I decided to expand on an existing page that I believed could benefit from additional information as well as a few changes. The existing page that I chose to work on was the Samuel Adams (beer) page. Compared to what my classmates shared about their experiences, I had very little trouble with my page goals. The one hiccup that I did encounter was that I tried to merge my Sandbox with the existing page, and my request was denied by an admin. However, I circumnavigated this by copy and pasting all of the content from my "Source Edit" into the existing page and it was successful. I had very little push back from the community on this. Through a peer review, I received a grammatical correction. My personal experience has shown that Wikipedia has an encouraging newcomer on boarding process.
Some classmates shared their experiences about negative feedback they received as they tried to contribute to the community. One instance included someone criticizing our class and professor personally. I would say this feedback was not constructive and a perfect example of "biting the newcomer", which shows poor moderation but luckily it seemed to be the exception not the norm. A positive experience I encountered on Wikipedia was when I sent someone "Wikilove" for their contribution on a page, and reciprocated and sent Wikilove back with a nice message. Additionally, when my page was rejected from merging, I received a kind explanation as to why and some advice as to what I could do moving forward.
The Perfect Article edit
Wikipedia states that the perfect article needs to be a notable topic, have appropriate structure, be well written, include informative, relevant media content, not be an orphan, be an appropriate length, and be completely neutral and unbiased. Luckily for me, my topic was already an existing page, which means no one saw the need to delete it for the lack of any of these things. This article was definitely far from perfect though. It lacked length and substance as well as media, and relative information. As you can see from this “diff” I continuously made changes and added more information about the Samuel Adams beers such as information about variants and the history. I also included a chart about the different brews to make the page more visually appealing for viewers. Additionally, I added the entire brewery and media sections where I included information about times the topic had been mentioned in reputable, well-read media. It's not enough to add quality information - I also had to take out information that did not give strong support to the page. Our class was warned that writing with a neutral point of view, especially with products and businesses would be more difficult. Some classmates were accused of creating their pages because they were invested personally or receiving a monetary reward. Personally, I can see how it might be difficult especially when choosing examples of a topic spoken about in the media. It is fortunate that my topic is not very controversial, because I'm sure it would have attracted more criticisms and been harder to find reliable, non-biased sources. It probably put me at an advantage to work on an existing page because I drew less attention but I think it was a great opportunity to learn about all of the rules and norms of the Wikipedia online community, and one step closer to feeling like I am a part of it.
Moderation edit
It is hard to say which form of moderation is always best for each online community. According to Grimmelmann[2], moderation is messy but necessary because it controls how users communicate and interact (page 102). Due to the nature of Wikipedia, it would make sense that the moderators would have to take an even more NPOV when they saw errors or flaws in the content a user posted. To be a moderator on Wikipedia, patience is key and it is better to assume stupidity rather than to assume malice. Any feedback I received on Wikipedia usually happened quickly after I made a change. If admins and other users were required to give advice as to what they think the misuser has done, I believe it would result in a more successful community. Being new, it can be hard to know what the proper way to do something is, so having your content deleted does not help your understanding. One of the most relative design claims by Kraut and Resnick is Design Claim 18 stating that “when newcomers have friendly interactions with existing community members soon after joining a community, they are more likely to stay longer and contribute more” (p. 208). This goes back to one of the very first things we learned from Kraut and Resnick [3] that “to be successful, online communities need the people who participate in them to contribute the resources on which the group’s existence is built”. Moderation can come from any member of the community, and the purpose of it is to encourage good behaviors and discourage bad behaviors. Encouragement can be shown as a form of moderation through Wikilove or giving "thanks". Discouragement can be shown through deleted content or other consequences. Moderation on Wikipedia helps reinforce normative behaviors. Based on my experience editing and working to create a perfect article, I would say that the Wikipedia community has accepted me.
References edit
- ^ Kraut, Robert; Resnick, Paul. Building Successful Online Communities. Cambrdige, MA: The MIT Press.
- ^ Grimmelmann, James (2015). "The Virtues of Moderation". The Yale Journal of Law & Technology: 101.
- ^ Kraut, Robert; Resnick, Paul. Building Successful Online Communities. Cambrdige, MA: The MIT Press.