Wikipedia is a website most of us have heard about but not many are experienced in. Wikipedia has a set formula that they have been using for many years. Wikipedia is an open source community with rules and regulations but almost anyone if wanted can contribute. In Privacy, Anonymity, and Perceived Risk in Open Collaboration: A Study of Tor Users and Wikipedians by Andrea Forte, Nazanin Andalibi, and Rachel Greenstadt stated “We found that risks perceived by contributors to open collaboration projects include threats of surveillance, violence, harassment, opportunity loss, reputation loss, and fear for loved ones”. Personally I would agree with this perspective. When I first joined Wikipedia I was not logged in and when I tried to make a change I got a notification that if I make this change my IP address would show? The website does not do very well safety verifications, we cannot just jump on Wikipedia with safety assurance, nor are safety rules clearly shown. I feel Wikipedia can have either a prompt or page regarding data, they can talk about their usage of data, they can let the user know that their information is safe and anonymous. This is important because with open contribution many fear backlash and are scared to contribute with their real name included.

Another point that Wikipedia does well is an introduction to their rules and regulations. They have a page devoted to their rules which anyone can access with a simple search. They have clear set norms. Norms are socially acceptable behaviors or what members of an online community should be doing. An absence of clear norms can make communities unfocused or ineffective, it can cause conflict and make new members find it difficult to join.^[1] However Wikipedia does not fail in any of these aspects, they clearly set out rules which makes their community extremely focused and effective. They have mods that monitor every new change made and reach out to you using your talk page.

A recommendation on what Wikipedia may do well is have a linkage to one's identity. When I signed up I was concerned about privacy so I used a fake name and my school email. Basically other than my school email there is no consequence for me being a troll. Three threats to an online community include, spammers, trollers, and the clueless users.^[1] The three responses to this can be prevention of bad behavior, limited negative effect, and reputation systems. Wikipedia can do better at preventing hyperlink scams, the addition of links focuses on the formatting not so much the content which is a security issue. They can also add captcha like recommended in the lecture for those who wish to contribute. Another idea is prevention other than grammar, checking for if the way you wrote something adheres to guidelines rather than what you wrote. Another idea is making the norms, regulations, and guidelines a front page when you access the site. If you do not do a google search you may learn the rules the hard way. Having them be a front page popup may be a nice introduction to the community.

When thinking about what makes an online community good we can look at the utility model for early community joining. A key principle is to make websites useful without community participation.^[1] Wikipedia is a site that is built on community participation, although it does have the reader's perspective of being an information site, Wikipedia has little to offer outside of just being a collaborative community. Looking at examples such as Youtube, they have a community option but without it there is still so much more you can do. Another principle is positions of power within the communities.^[1] Other than a moderator there are very few positions of power you can climb up on Wikipedia. There could be beginner, intermediate, and expert levels which can show fluency and also have attention drawn to things written by beginners to have a double check. Wikipedia can have something that differentiates new and old users.

Wikipedia is unique in a sense that it is a more informative and collaborative community. Compared to social media it is more professional than personal. It is more focused on facts rather than opinions compared to Reddit or Quora. It does not have to share your thoughts/pictures or have a question/answer format. I have not seen another community like Wikipedia, the closest I can think of is Stack Overflow which compares itself as being a more fact based media., even then it follows the question answer format. Wikipedia is an internet summary of sources on a topic. It is easily accessible and available to be updated regularly by its many users to be up to date. Almost every topic you can think of is available on Wikipedia so it knows how to be relevant.

Wikipedia is a good definition of Reed’s Law. The law states “The utility of large networks, particularly social networks, can scale exponentially with the size of the network”.^[2] Wikipedia has been prominent as an information gainer leading to its widespread recognition. The usage of Wikipedia also has evolved. Before this class I used it as a tool to learn more about certain topics or get informed for a school paper. Its utility has evolved with time which is why it is even more important to make these changes. My recommendations should be taken more seriously rather than just random advice from a new user due to this reason. I have been a student, I have been a contributor. I have seen Wikipedia from different perspectives so I can speak for the experiences as a user and a builder. I know what each side wants from Wikipedia, the recommendations a student may make are different from a contributor. So having the experience of both sides allows me to grasp what is the best thing for this community which will satisfy both areas of its community.