A community is a group where individuals come together and create a sense of togetherness through beliefs, hierarchy, history, and other expectations and norms. But what is the hardest part of joining a new community? Is it the confidence required to contribute, the possibility of early alienation, or is it something else? For many newcomers, it is a combination of all these challenges, as entering a new community creates a learning curve where members may slowly grasp the community through its culture and norms. This happens within communities, both online and in-person, where new individuals must learn the ways of the community through an integration phase. During this time, the newcomer must decide whether they want to be a part of the community, if they feel that they fit and can meaningfully contribute. This integration phase is no different on Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. Contributing to Wikipedia exhibits newcomers' motivations and persuasively influences them to a long-term commitment to the community through Wikipedians' feedback, rather than the active Wikipedia norms.^{[needs copy edit]} The feedback and responses that experienced Wikipedians give to newcomers early in the Seven Ages of Wikipedians influence how a newcomer makes their decision of either continuing to contribute to pages or moving away from the community altogether.

As I began my life on Wikipedia in Professor Reagle's class, he provided us with a gateway as newcomers. By being enrolled in his class, we worked with WikiEdu, which helped teach students some of the editing tools and other basics of Wikipedia. Along with having this guide, Professor Reagle provided us with chances to work on Wikipedia before making a large contribution, as we worked on the platform for small class contributions, such as our QICs. This experience helped with some of the learning curve, but it was still contributions behind a wall within a small, secluded community. So I had yet to experience what it was like to be a part of the overall Wikipedia Community.

Within a community, each contributor must find their reason to participate. The motivations can be found intrinsically or extrinsically, both of which can shape the overall contribution and effort that members put into their community. Intrinsic motivations are the internal reasons as to why someone may do something, so for the sake of contributing to Wikipedia, many Wikipedians will contribute because they feel they have extensive knowledge on a topic that has yet to be shared, or they believe they can improve an article that has been published. Extrinsic motivations are the external motives that push people to do things, which could be as simple as contributing to Wikipedia for a college course and a grade.^[1] In my first experience, I was both intrinsically and extrinsically motivated to contribute, as I was making a significant contribution due to a college course and a grade, two large external factors. But at the same time, I was creating the article page for the Home Base Program, a non-profit organization for veterans, because I support its work and believe it deserves its recognition. Based on Caldini's 1984 principles of persuasion, my liking for the Home Base Program's work had founded my intrinsic motivation.^[2] However, something that I found interesting during my Wikipedia experience was how different my experience was from my work, which went against Kohn's beliefs. Kohn (1993) believed that adding a reward to something that was an intrinsic motivation would harm the effort put in.^[3] In my case, the grade (which posed as a reward) did not take away from the intrinsic motivation or hurt my work, as I enjoyed my work and believed that this page would benefit Wikipedia.

After deciding what my article would be on, it was time to truly join the Wikipedia community. As a newcomer to the platform, I still had to adjust to the expectations and norms that Wikipedians follow. WikiEdu helped with some of this, as the dashboard provided walk-throughs and different tutorials to help teach some of the basics. The legitimacy of the norms, along with the necessary commitment needed to work on Wikipedia, are the reasons I worked my hardest to comply with the rules set by the community. Although it was very odd at the beginning, as the user interface and other affordances of the platform were somewhat tricky, I grew to like Wikipedia. The affordances, or, according to Norman (1988), the different design features that help users complete tasks were crucial for making Wikipedia what it is today.^[4] Affordances such as quick citations, linking to other pages, talk pages, sandboxes, diffs, article history, and the different editing variations (meaning source and visual editor), Wikipedia would not be able to function anywhere near the same. Each affordance plays a key role in the success of the platform, as they benefit users of all levels in a variety of different ways.

As I moved away from brainstorming and my article's outline, preparing to create a brand new article for Wikipedia and for online users to easily access, I faced some uncertainty due to my unfamiliarity with entering the main space and Wikipedia in general. I had been second-guessing my article choice, as I struggled to find secondary sources to show the notability of the Home Base Program, but I knew the support articles were out there. I also struggled with adapting to the Wikipedia format and writing style, as it was to be neutral and informative, which was very strange compared to the norm of taking a side and writing a scholarly paper. But these challenges did not discourage me from working on and publishing, the first contributions towards the Home Base Program article. The initial version of the article was littered with primary sources, with a few secondary sources to further support information, but it felt more like a summary of Home Base, rather than an informative article about who the organization was and having notable sources to support it.

After publishing my contributions to the main space, I decided to post about the article on the TeaHouse, as I looked for feedback from experienced Wikipedians. Not long after my announcement on the page, which has since been archived, I received some great feedback on both the Home Base talk page and under my post. Unfortunately, I also received some feedback that felt somewhat rude, as the tone used by the contributor came off as harsh, with suggestions that did not contribute directly to creating a better article. I may have crumbled and not responded due to that feeling, but looking back at it, I believe I should have reached out and asked the Wikipedian for help. Although I had received more feedback with suggestions to help, and had received a guide to help make the article better, I had been left discouraged and questioning my ability to contribute because of the comment I found to be harsh.

It was not until after I received classmate peer feedback from Giorgiachristiansen that I felt encouraged again. After reviewing her feedback, I also noticed that there had been several contributions made to the article by other Wikipedians, mainly cleaning and making small edits. This Special:Diff/1343910061/1344469729 link shows the differences made in the article from when I first brought it into the main space, and from all the contributions made by different users in three days. Having had the peer feedback with kind words, outside contributors, and specific suggestions (some of which aligned with what I had heard on the TeaHouse), I had regained my intrinsic motivation to edit the article. In return for the kind actions of contributors, I thanked Giorgia in person and used the 'Thank' affordance to send a quick thank you to two users who directly contributed to the article or its talk page. This also encouraged me to complete my own peer reviews, one for the Curly Girl Method and one for Parasocial Interaction, where I even made some small edits. I also completed some other small tasks, such as adding citations to articles that were in need, such as Limassol and Tokugawa Ieyasu. This had been assigned to us, but I had struggled to do it originally. After gaining motivation to work on the platform again, I found it much more enjoyable to add these citations.

After gaining confidence again, along with the extrinsic motivation of a grade, I figured it was time to make some more edits to my semester-long contribution. Based on the feedback I received, I knew I had to add images, edit writing, find notable secondary sources, and make the article feel more like a Wikipedia article. Luckily, as previously mentioned, contributors had taken care of the formatting and writing style edits that were necessary to make the article feel more like a Wiki article. As this was taken care of, I began to search for more secondary sources, which included articles from The Boston Globe, a source that made a significant contribution in supporting my writing. I also made minor edits, such as grammatical mistakes, removing a sentence that spoke of a future change (something I was told to do as speaking of future change within an operation is inappropriate according to Wiki norms), and I added more details to the article. Lastly, I added images that I had taken to showcase two of the events that the organization hosts to raise money to support their cause. With all the changes inspired by the feedback I received, the article has vastly improved.

If there was one thing I would push for on Wikipedia, it would be for a landing page, or a TeaHouse-like page for newcomers to share their work among one another. It would create a newcomer community on Wikipedia, as they adapt to the overall community. Also, it would encourage newbies to post on the page, as everyone is in a similar situation and shares a similar knowledge of the platform. It would be a confidence booster for many, as they share their work and get feedback from others, but it would also help with the learning curve of interacting with others within the community and posting to the main space. Having a chance like this, before pushing work in front of more experienced Wikipedians, could have been beneficial for me, as I would have gotten more feedback and had a chance to talk to others before moving my work to the main space. It would have been in a setting with no hierarchical rankings, so it would limit intimidation.

My overall experience on Wikipedia was shaped more by the feedback and interactions I had with others, rather than the platform and norms themselves. Receiving feedback, both encouraging and discouraging, was what pushed me to create a better article to serve the Wikipedia community, but it also helped me feel as if I were part of the Wikipedia community. My first contributing experience on Wikipedia was not one that I had expected, as I was not sure if I would have any real interactions or be able to create a new article from scratch, yet the online community proved me wrong.

AI Tool Usage

ChatGPT was used to help provide feedback to ensure the paper is aligned with the prompt, and minor grammatical clean-up.