User:Gumpy24/reflection

It took a three-person email chain involving my professor, [[User:Reagle|Reagle]], and our class-assigned WikiEducation staff member [[User:Ian (Wiki Ed)|Ian]] to move my first Wikipedia article to the mainspace. No Wikipedian was involved. The article, [[List of NBA career personal fouls leaders]], is a statistical reference I built from scratch this semester using data from Basketball Reference. In search of constructive feedback, I posted peer-review requests on the article talk page and [[Wikipedia:Teahouse|Teahouse]], Wikipedia's dedicated forum for new editors. Neither attempt garnered a response. Wikipedia claims to support newcomers through an extensive infrastructure of policies, help forums, and community spaces such as [[Wikipedia:WikiProject|WikiProjects]]; my experience creating this article illuminates a discrepancy between the platform's intentions and actions. Wikipedia's newcomer crisis is not a problem of design but of execution—the apparatus for supporting new editors exists in theory, but the human engagement that research identifies as essential for retention is absent in practice.

[[Special:Permalink/1347524138]]

Before discussing the community silence that defined my experience as a Wikipedia contributor, one editorial decision deserves mention. While building a list article may seem devoid of such considerations, I had to decide whether to include or exclude [[American Basketball Association|ABA]] statistics from players' career totals. I ultimately concluded that excluding these statistics was the most logical course of action. Including these stats would have inflated the foul tally of numerous individuals who played in both the ABA and the [[National Basketball Association|NBA]]. Considering this list is meant to represent the history of the NBA, the exclusion of ABA statistics was critical in preserving the article's integrity.

[[Special:Diff/1347524138/1347349248]]

When the article was ready to be published, I attempted to move it from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gumpy24/List_of_NBA_career_personal_fouls_leaders&oldid=1343977432 my sandbox] to the mainspace. Wikipedia rejected the request, providing the error "page could not be moved." The target title contained a redirect to [[Personal foul (basketball)]]. I emailed my professor with screenshots, and he CC'd Ian, who remedied my issue; he provided me with a special URL to the redirect page, told me to delete the redirect, and said to paste my sandbox content onto the same page ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_NBA_career_personal_fouls_leaders&diff=1344004861&oldid=1296916036 diff]). I eventually published my first contribution, but the process was riddled with obstacles that necessitated assistance from outside the general Wikipedia community.

The obstacles I encountered are not unique or isolated incidents; they are structural and impact all newcomers. Halfaker et al. (2013) argue that the quality control mechanisms Wikipedia utilizes to withstand its growth "have ironically crippled the very growth they were designed to manage" (p. 664).{{sfn|Halfaker|Geiger|Morgan|Riedl|2013|p=664}} As Wikipedia expanded, its community introduced automated tools to reject contributions and a perpetual onslaught of rules to finely tailor content changes. These mechanisms succeed in deterring vandalism but inadvertently drive away good-faith newcomers. Halfaker et al. identify the restrictiveness of these systems as a central cause of decreased newcomer retention. Wikipedia built its defenses to deter bad actors and succeeded; however, in doing so, it alienated good-faith newcomers who are expected to navigate this intricate platform on their own.

Beyond these structural barriers, the research is clear on what newcomers need: early interaction from established editors. Kraut et al. (2011) find that "personalized messages, such as comments about the newcomers' background or requests to work on a particular task, led to more powerful effects than generic ones" like welcome templates (p. 207).{{sfn|Kraut|Resnick|Kiesler|2011|p=207}} Morgan et al. (2013) designed the Teahouse specifically to facilitate this—a space that offers "early, positive socialization opportunities" and "interactive community support" for new editors (p. 840).{{sfn|Morgan|Bouterse|Walls|Stierch|2013|p=840}} I used the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1289&oldid=1346944772#Feedback_requested_on_newly_created_list_article:_List_of_NBA_career_personal_fouls_leaders Teahouse], posted on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_NBA_career_personal_fouls_leaders&oldid=1347481629 article talk page], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?logid=179679192 sent a thanks] to an editor who added to my article. Yet not a single outreach yielded an interaction. Even the Teahouse—the apparatus Morgan et al. designed to remedy this exact problem—failed to deliver on its promise when no one showed up to answer.

This silence is not incidental; it reflects how Wikipedia socializes newcomers, or rather, how it does not. Kraut et al. (2011) note that "socialization processes in most online communities are informal and individualistic"; WikiProjects "rarely use institutional socialization tactics," do not onboard newcomers in groups, and rarely assign mentors or provide guidance (p. 214).{{sfn|Kraut|Resnick|Kiesler|2011|p=214}} Musicant et al. (2011) studied the Adopt-a-user program, Wikipedia's attempt at formal mentoring, and found "mixed success"—communication between mentors and mentees was inconsistent, and "several key functions of mentoring are missing or not fulfilled consistently" (p. 173).{{sfn|Musicant|Ren|Johnson|Riedl|2011|p=173}} Even if help is received, newcomers often do not get notified. Wikipedia uses a passive notification system that requires users to opt in by watching a page, an action Musicant et al. (2011) identify as "clumsy" and "unlikely" for new editors (p. 175).{{sfn|Musicant|Ren|Johnson|Riedl|2011|p=175}} These are hurdles that compound the alienation of newcomers.

Wikipedia's failure to attract, engage, and sustain newcomers is a fault, yet it is not representative of the platform's ability to build effective systems; its moderation infrastructure proves otherwise. Kraut et al. (2011) observe that incremental warnings "increase the legitimacy and thus the effectiveness of sanctions" (p. 162).{{sfn|Kraut|Resnick|Kiesler|2011|p=162}} Wikipedia applies this principle through four escalating warning levels for vandals, ranging from a good-faith warning to a block at the other end of the spectrum. "A mild but certain punishment is more effective in deterring misbehavior than a severe but uncertain punishment" (Kraut et al., 2011, p. 162).{{sfn|Kraut|Resnick|Kiesler|2011|p=162}} Further scholarship commends Wikipedia's moderation policing. Grimmelmann (2015) describes Wikipedia's moderation as a system of "distributed organization and strong social norms" that operates differently depending on the community and the individual case at hand. Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, Wikipedia focuses on "group dynamics rather than hard-coded limits" (p. 80).{{sfn|Grimmelmann|2015|p=80}} This infrastructure is proven to work. The irony is that the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] is clearly capable of building systems that cater to the community; unfortunately, it chose to focus on thwarting vandals rather than welcoming and retaining individuals with good intentions.

If Wikipedia can build a graduated sanctions system that effectively deters vandals, it can build an onboarding infrastructure that positively orients newbies. The most immediate fix is simplifying the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]]. Because this class was integrated with [[Wiki Education Foundation|WikiEdu]], I was fortunate to access a library of MOS instruction. This is not the case for practically all newcomers; they have to scour WikiProjects, obscure articles, and talk pages for resources. Halfaker et al. (2013) find that Wikipedia's policy environment has "calcified" over time and that this calcification is "disproportionately felt by newer editors, who see their policy edits rejected at a higher rate" (p. 683).{{sfn|Halfaker|Geiger|Morgan|Riedl|2013|p=683}} If Wikipedia wants to survive the contemporary media landscape, where information is readily available, it must simplify its infrastructure—specifically the MOS—to attract and maintain prospective Wikipedians.

Simplifying the MOS addresses the ease-of-use problem; the engagement complication requires a more proactive solution. I propose that Wikipedia develop an automated mentor-matching program in which both newcomers and experienced editors register with subject-matter preferences. The mechanism would then automatically pair the two individuals once the new user hits an edit threshold in a relevant subject area. This directly addresses the failures identified by Musicant et al. (2011); they found that the [[Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user|Adopt-a-user]] program struggled because mentoring was inconsistent and entirely dependent on excessive individual initiative. If such a system existed during my project, an experienced editor with an interest in basketball and/or the NBA would have been notified that a newb was building an NBA statistics article, and I would not have spent the entire semester editing in silence.

Wikipedia does not have a policy problem; it has an execution problem. The "[[Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers|Don't bite the newcomer]]" guideline, the Teahouse, and the Adopt-a-user program are spectacular solutions to the newcomer retention problem; however, Wikipedia fails to adequately attend to these systems. My article, [[List of NBA career personal fouls leaders]], is now active in the mainspace. It is factually correct, well-sourced, and formatted to the standards of comparable NBA list articles. But I accomplished this despite Wikipedia's community, not because of it. Every hurdle I faced was resolved by someone outside the platform—my professor, a WikiEducation staff member, or my own trial and error. Wikipedia succeeds in its moderation because the platform ensures that someone is always watching; newcomer integration fails because no one is. Until Wikipedia applies the same energy and resources to ensure good-faith contributors feel valued as it does to punishing vandals, its editor decline will persist—not because newcomers are unwilling to contribute, but because the community never gave them a reason to.

== References ==

{{refbegin}}

* {{cite journal |last1=Grimmelmann |first1=James |year=2015 |title=The Virtues of Moderation |url=https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjolt/vol17/iss1/2/ |journal=Yale Journal of Law & Technology |volume=17 |pages=42–109 |ref={{sfnref|Grimmelmann|2015}}}}

* {{cite journal |last1=Halfaker |first1=Aaron |last2=Geiger |first2=R. Stuart |last3=Morgan |first3=Jonathan T. |last4=Riedl |first4=John |year=2013 |title=The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia's Reaction to Popularity Is Causing Its Decline |journal=American Behavioral Scientist |volume=57 |issue=5 |pages=664–688 |doi=10.1177/0002764212469365 |ref={{sfnref|Halfaker|Geiger|Morgan|Riedl|2013}}}}

* {{cite book |last1=Kraut |first1=Robert E. |title=Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-Based Social Design |last2=Resnick |first2=Paul |last3=Kiesler |first3=Sara |publisher=MIT Press |year=2011 |isbn=978-0262016575 |ref={{sfnref|Kraut|Resnick|Kiesler|2011}}}}

* {{cite conference |last1=Morgan |first1=Jonathan T. |last2=Bouterse |first2=Siko |last3=Walls |first3=Heather |last4=Stierch |first4=Sarah |year=2013 |title=Tea and Sympathy: Crafting Positive New User Experiences on Wikipedia |conference= |pages=839–848 |doi=10.1145/2441776.2441871 |ref={{sfnref|Morgan|Bouterse|Walls|Stierch|2013}} |book-title=Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work}}

* {{cite conference |last1=Musicant |first1=David R. |last2=Ren |first2=Yuqing |last3=Johnson |first3=James A. |last4=Riedl |first4=John |year=2011 |title=Mentoring in Wikipedia: A Clash of Cultures |conference= |pages=173–182 |doi=10.1145/2038558.2038586 |ref={{sfnref|Musicant|Ren|Johnson|Riedl|2011}} |book-title=Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration}}

{{refend}}{{reflist}}