There is a widely recognized phenomenon which drives parents and caregivers crazy. This phenomenon is the frequent urge for children to ask “why?” This simple question seems unnecessary but is essential to the natural development process which has been known to help children acquire language and knowledge while transitioning into their next stage of life.^[1] There are also different stages of one's online life marked by their length of membership in an online community. On Wikipedia, for example, they are the seven ages of Wikipedians: WikiInfant, WikiChild, WikiTeen, WikiYoungAdult, WikiAdult, WikiSenior, and WikiDeath.

Online communities like Wikipedia use the same twenty-six letters we all use day to day, but there are still norms, policies, and jargon that require a similar process of natural development. My own experience of creating the Weaponized Incompetence page on Wikipedia as a WikiChild has made me consider whether there is room for the natural development process to coexist with the notion that those in knowledge-based communities have an obligation to know (Reagle, 2015)^[2]. I will focus on how communication is one part of the solution to allow concepts like don’t bite the newcomer to coexist with the obligation to know and RTFM (Read the Fucking Manual). Finally, I will give possible ways to improve newcomer retention in online communities such as Wikipedia.

Norms are typically socially constructed, sometimes unwritten rules, that are followed for the sake of social order (Kraut et al., 2012, p. 127)^[3]. Norms can also be conceptualized as “attitudes of daily life” or seen but unnoticed background expectancies (Garfinkel, 2012, p. 37)^[4]. Online communities follow norms, but they also create them as the community is strengthened. Some of the social norms for Redditors have been coined “Reddiquette” while Wikipedians follow the principles of “Wikiquette”.

The first norms of Wikipedia that I learned was to assume good faith and not bite the newcomers. These principles not only help bring civility to the overall community but help retain members by creating a welcoming environment. As a new member of the community, learning these norms made the overwhelming task of contributing a whole article on Weaponized Incompetence (1) a bit less daunting. After putting myself out there and reaching out to the Wikipedians on the Teahouse, I got a review saying I did well at sourcing a previously controversial page that had been deleted (2). I also received a thank you for creating the page from an experienced user by the name of @/Iljhgtn (3).

Kraut et al. (2012) claimed that positive feedback, can enhance the motivation to perform tasks or be further involved (p. 47). ^[3] The positive feedback I received made me feel happy to be a part of such a supportive community and I saw visions of myself continuing to add to the page I had created and contribute to others. I never received any prize but the dopamine from compliments did feel like a reward for the work I had put in. However, Kohn (1999) has noted that rewards and punishments aren't opposites, but are two sides to the same coin that can manipulate rather than motivate (p. 50).^[5]

After the initial positive feedback from Wikipedians interacting with my page, came a wave of those who were more critical. There were major edits made which involved deleting large amounts of my article (4). For some of these edits there was an attempt to explain the reasoning through the comments or in the talk page while for others there was simply a string of letters including WP:NOTHOWTO, MOS:NOTSEEALSO, WP:DRAFTIFY, and WP:DRAFTNOCAT. These shortcuts led to links of different pages outlining guidelines. These shortcuts being added without explanation reminded me of the RTFM (Read the Fucking Manual) acronym seen by Reagle within geek feminist communities (2015). This obligation to know through manuals can be a feature of knowledge-based online communities but can also create an in-group and be a barrier to entry^[2].

I understand that these shortcuts can save time when making edits, but I believe they take away from the human element of explaining a norm. It also paints some of these rules to be objective when there can be subjectivity to how it's applied. For instance, when assessing whether the new page had verifiable and reliable sources there were differing opinions with @/Klbrain stating that this page had better sources than the deleted page (2) and @/Drmies stating (after a review from @/Doczilla(5)) that my page had worse sources than the past page (6).

I eventually understood and agreed with the decision to move the page back to the draft stage due to the lack of sources, however, I initially felt gutted and too disheartened to do further work on it. The critique of my sources done by @/Doczilla(5) was genuine and neutral, but all I could focus on was the fact that I didn't have a chance to get a word in before my page was moved (7). The user who had ultimately moved my page had left comments such as “holy moly” when making edits (8) and had failed to inform me that it had been moved despite that being a rule within WP:DRAFTIFY. Kraut et al. (2012) explains this as performance feedback enhancing motivation only when it is considered to be sincere (p. 49).^[3] I saw the actions of @/Drmies as lacking sincerity, and it made me lose some of my motivation.

It is hard to know where to draw the line between not biting the newcomers and not biting the hand that feeds you by respecting your elders, especially when there is a lack of communication. The urge for a WikiChild to ask for clarification or ask “why” may not respect the fact that the person on the other side of the screen is a real person with limited time, but it is also true that a WikiSenior who deletes a part of a page may fail to recognize the time it took to make such a contribution.

One thing that is more difficult in an online community compared to a physical one is remembering the humanity behind a person, or their username. Equality in communication can be a reminder of the humanity behind a username as it requires everyone involved, regardless of superiority, to be willing to come to an understanding (Reagle, 2010)^[6]. After I followed up with those who were reviewing my page (@/Drmies, @/Hoary, @/Doczilla, and @/Klbrian (9)) I was able to get recommendations for how to improve (10). I think this allowed them to remember the human behind the creation of the page, but it also motivated me to get past my initial anger, remember their humanity and assume good faith, and attempt to rewrite my page once again.

Despite my efforts to get the page up on main space again by starting mostly from scratch (11) and getting it copyedited by @/Reagle (12), it was still found to be WP:TOOSOON for this page to be moved back to main space by @/Dorsetonian and @/Brianda(13). The increase in communication made me handle my article staying in draft space better than when my page was initially moved back. I'm not sure whether I’ll still be on Wikipedia when Weaponized Incompetence is better researched and has more sources. Although I have a newfound respect for Wikipedians and the work they do to ensure an open access to knowledge is available, this WikiChild may experience WikiDeath earlier than expected.

My premature WikiDeath can be explained in a number of ways. A study on peer feedback by Zhu et al. (2013) found that negative feedback on Wikipedia typically causes a decrease in user’s contributions (p. 2)^[7]. Kohn (1999) may point to a lack of intrinsic motivation, and a dependence on the extrinsic motivation of positive comments (p. 50)^[5]. While these factors may be partially true, I think the main reason I am not a retained newcomer on Wikipedia is because it felt too big to be a community.

According to Kraut et al. (2012), people are more willing to contribute to an online group when the group is small rather than large (p. 63).^[3] Something I feel like I struggled with due to the vast size of Wikipedia is being able to anticipate the people or norms I would be interacting with. I also felt a lack of relationships to lean on to guide me through the process and didn't know who to turn to when asking "why?". I am grateful to have had the support of those from class such as peer reviews from @/Nabbattie and @/Serenat03, and WikiEducators like @/Brianda and @/Reagle, but those relationships felt given rather than found and built myself. Relationship building and certainty are some of the main factors that explain why people prefer smaller communities to participate in (Hwang & Foote, 2021).^[8]

Through my experience, I learned that problems which came from conflicting norms and a lack of communication may have been mitigated by joining a Wikipedia subgroup on WikiProjects early on. Wikipedia having more popups or resources available for new users looking for specific communities would help speed up the natural development process as well. Something that I would recommend to future WikiChildren is to focus on finding your niche or community before making major edits. Having a community to communicate with and learning to feel comfortable in asking "why?" makes it easier to navigate the norm and jargon filled world of Wikipedia.