Research:A Whole New World - Integration of New Editors into the Serbian Wikipedia Community

Created
18:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Collaborators
Nevena Rudinac, Miloš Todorović
Duration:  2023-July – 2024-April
This page documents a completed research project.

Introduction

edit

One of the main features of the Wikipedia community is its democratic nature as members vote on almost everything regarding Wikipedia.[1] Therefore, it is beneficial for editors to be part of this community and take part in its activities because that gives them the opportunity to be part of the decision-making processes. However, upon joining Wikipedia, editors are faced with the difficult task of getting familiar with technical aspects, finding their place within the community, and learning the specific rules and norms.

Empirical data points out that many newcomers have a hard time dealing with those tasks [2] [3]; that 60% of new editors quit Wikipedia after only 24 hours and never return, and the fact that only 8% of newcomers end up becoming active Wikipedians [4] also illustrates this. One of the main challenges that they face are the reverts of their articles, which can be followed by negative feedback. Even though reverts are important for maintaining the quality of articles, data shows that they can be stressful and that they can significantly affect retention[5] [6] [7]. Additionally, it has been pointed out that the increased popularity of Wikipedia was associated with an upsurge in rejections of changes made by new editors, and those rejections were significant predictors of retention [8].

In addition to this, even though Wikipedian communities are spread across the world, the majority of them are still homogenous in terms of gender [9]. Namely, several studies pointed out that the participation of female editors on Wikipedia is quite low [10][11]. It is possible to assume, therefore, that it is especially challenging for new female editors to be integrated. Previous studies have pointed out that female editors reported feeling uncomfortable about hostile communication, and they mentioned conflicts as one of the main reasons why they stopped contributing to Wikipedia as often as they did [12].

One empirical study pointed out that editors who edit Wikipedia frequently from the beginning are likelier to stay on the platform than casual editors [13]. Because of that, it would be beneficial to study the motivation of new editors to frequently edit Wikipedia from the beginning. That knowledge can, later on, be implemented to design better approach strategies and welcoming policies. Furthermore, that knowledge can help us understand how best to attract more editors to Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, and how to assure that they stay on for a longer time. Additionally, the proper integration of new editors is especially important in the context of the Wikipedia Educational Program, since it gathers many new volunteers through its activities.

In accordance with previous research in this field [14], the aim of our research is to cover the following research questions:

Theme 1: Thoughts about the Wikimedia Movement:

  • How do new editors perceive the Wikimedia Movement? Why is it important to them? Did their perception change as they become more involved?
  • How do they perceive Wikipedia and has it changed over time? What would they change?
  • How do they feel about the Wikipedia Community? Did their opinions and feelings change? In what ways?

Theme 2: Contribution to Wikipedia:

  • Why did they start contributing? What was their experience like at the beginning?
  • In what ways do they contribute to Wikipedia and how often?
  • What motivates/demotivates them to contribute?

Theme 3: Interaction with the community:

  • How did they come in contact with the community for the first time? How did they feel about that interaction? Did they receive some sort of support at the beginning?
  • What impact did those first interactions have on them?
  • How did they learn the norms and rules on Wikipedia? What did they think of and how did they feel about them? How do they usually interact with other editors?
  • Do their interactions with the community impact their contribution to Wikipedia?

However, to gain an in-depth understanding of Serbian Wikipedia's new editors' motivation, it is important to find out what generally drives editors to contribute and engage with the community. Even though several studies focused on the motivation of Wikipedia editors [15][16][17][18], there are no studies on the motivation of Serbian Wikipedia editors.

Date

edit

The research was carried out from 1st July 2023, until 30th April 2024.

Literature review

edit

This research project focused on two different but related questions, one about the general motivation of editors on Wikipedia to contribute, and one about the individual experiences of new editors.

The motivation of Wikipedians

edit

Several researchers dealt with the topic of editors' motivation, and their findings indicate that a large number of extrinsic and intrinsic motivational factors affect the willingness to contribute to Wikipedia [19] [20] [21] [22]. The identified extrinsic factors are career opportunity, knowledge, skill learning, reputation building, self-development [23], reciprocity [24] [25], and utilitarian motives [26]. When it comes to intrinsic motivational factors, studies singled out: enjoyment [27] [28], altruism [29] [30] [31], social needs and a sense of belonging [32][33] [34], among others. However, the limitation of those studies was that they focused either on motivation to contribute to writing content on Wikipedia, or to participate in the community, not both. Unlike them, Xu and Li's study explored the relationships between content creation, community participation, and motivational factors based on the Self-Determination Theory [35], which will be the framework for the interpretation of our results as well. Their findings showed that intrinsic factors, such as altruism and a sense of belonging, were strongly associated with community participation, while extrinsic factors, such as reciprocity and self-development, were correlated with content contribution. Enjoyment was found to have a stronger correlation with content contribution than community participation, while reputation and ideology had no impact on either behavior. Put simply, the study highlights the importance of considering both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations in understanding online behavior [36].

Xu and Li's study examines relations between various forms of motivation and the two most common types of behavior on Wikipedia, but it focuses on the Chinese Wikipedia. To confirm their generalizability, it is worth testing whether the same results will be found with different language versions of Wikipedia, like Serbian Wikipedia. Additionally, most of the previous studies focused either on motivational or demotivational factors, and there are not many studies that focused on both. The goal of our study is to determine how different (extrinsic and intrinsic) motivational and demotivational factors influence content creation and community participation.

Based on all previously said, we propose the following hypotheses:

  • The motivation of editors to contribute to the content on Wikipedia will be affected by a mix of extrinsic and intrinsic factors such as reciprocity, self-development, and enjoyment (H1).
  • Community participation will be mostly influenced by intrinsic factors such as altruism, a sense of belonging, and possible ideology (H2)
  • Even though demotivational factors would probably affect both content creation and community participation, it is possible to assume that there would be differences in the ways different demotivational variables affect two behavioral variables (H3).

Going off of them, we propose the following specific hypotheses:

  • H1a: Reciprocity has a stronger effect on content contribution than community participation.
  • H1b: Self-development has a stronger effect on content contribution than community participation.
  • H1c: Enjoyment has a stronger effect on content contribution than on community participation.
  • H1d: Reputation has a stronger effect on content contribution than on community participation.
  • H2a: Altruism has a stronger effect on community participation than on content contribution.
  • H2b: A sense of belonging has a stronger effect on community participation than on content contribution.
  • H2c: Ideology has a stronger effect on community participation than on content contribution.
  • H3a: Reverse edits have a stronger effect on content contribution than on community participation.
  • H3b: Negative feedback has a stronger effect on content contribution than on community participation.
  • H3c: Conflict has a stronger negative effect on community participation.

Experiences of new editors

edit

Bryant and colleagues conducted a study in which they, using Activity theory as a framework, described the transformation process of a novice into an experienced editor on Wikipedia. Their findings showcase that at the beginning, new editors focus on writing articles without many attempts to join the activities of the community, however, after a while, they start being active members, in some cases even becoming administrators[37]. One limitation of this study is that they haven't defined how long a person has to be active on Wikipedia for them to be classified as a new/experienced editor. Furthermore, some participants in the study were active on Wikipedia for over a year, and they might have forgotten some important details about their early days because of that. Not to mention that, in their study, the authors didn't focus on the experiences of specific subgroups, such as women.

In our study, we will use specific criteria for recruiting participants: 1) that they open their accounts no longer than 6 months ago, and 2) that they made at least one edit in the past month. Additionally, half of our sample will include female editors, since we want to focus on their experiences and see if it is different from the experiences of male editors.

Methods and data

edit

Considering that our research will be carried out in two stages, this section will also include two parts: the quantitative and qualitative methodology.

Motivational and demotivational factors of content contribution and community participation

edit

Our study will use a correlational research design. We plan to examine relationships among several constructs or latent variables. The focus is going to be on the following latent variables: extrinsic motivational factors in the context of Wikipedian (reciprocity, self-development, reputation), intrinsic motivational factors (enjoyment, altruism, sense of belonging and ideology), and demotivational factors (reverts of edits, negative feedback, and conflicts within the community), and two types of behaviors on Wikipedia (content contribution, and community participation). Furthermore, we plan to use an online self-report survey to collect data and measure each construct. The construct will be measured on the 5-point Likert scale and we plan to formalize the questions based on the previous studies. Specifically, the questions about content contribution will be adapted from the study conducted by Cho and colleagues[38], while behavioral questions about community participation will be adapted from the studies done by Wasko and Faraj[39], and Koh and Kim[40]. Questions related to extrinsic motivational factors will be adapted from Cho et al[41], and a study conducted by Nov[42]. Intrinsic motivational factors will be adapted from Agarwal and Karahanna[43], Stewart and Gosain[44], and Cho et al[45]. The demotivational factor will be adapted from Asadi and colleagues' study in which several demotivational factors were mentioned by participants[46]. Lastly, to test if participants pay attention to the questionnaire, we will also add two attention check questions.

Since the target population for this research is the Wikipedia community, we will use purposive sampling. Potential participants will be informed about the study and recruited through posts on Village Pump and communicational channels such as email and Discord.

To test the hypotheses, we will construct the Structural equation modeling (SEM) using Amos software[47]. This statistical technique will help us estimate the effect of extrinsic and intrinsic motivational factors, as well as demotivational factors on the two behavior constructs, content contribution and community participation [48].

The experiences of new editors

edit

The semi-structured interviews will be used to collect data as this allows participants to bring attention to some aspects of their experiences that were not included in our research questions, and that can give us better insights into the topic. The agenda that will be used during the interview will be constructed based on the research questions and previous studies in this field.

In the second stage of the research, we will use purposive sampling as well since we're interested in the experiences of new editors. We will recruit participants using the snowball technique, emailing potential participants and reaching them through Discord, and posting about the research on Village Pump. The sample size will be between 10 to 12 participants and is defined following the principle of theoretical saturation[49]. During the recruitment, we will make sure that female editors make up half of the sample for the research. Additionally, only editors who made their accounts in the 6 months prior to the research, wrote or improved at least one article, and made at least one change in the past month will be selected for the research.

The data will be analyzed using interpretative phenomenological analysis[50]. Firstly, the individual experiences of new editors will be analyzed to understand specific dimensions of their experiences. Secondly, the individual analysis will be integrated to look for mutual elements and get the bigger picture of the new editors' experiences.

Expected output and Community impact plan

edit

Our expected outputs are:

New guidelines on dealing with new editors, based on our findings on the motivational/demotivational factors.

The primary audience, in this case, is the Wikipedia community, both the Serbian and the wider one. We hope that the guidelines for the integration of new editors will help with the retention of newcomers, which can be beneficial for the sustainability of the community. Considering the historical context, and language similarities, the findings of our study can also be useful to communities on Bosnian, Croatian, Serbo-Croatian, and Macedonian Wikipedia.

A research paper on the motivation of editors on Serbian Wikipedia (likely published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) and a second paper on the integration of new editors on Serbian Wikipedia (likely published in the New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia or the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology).

The target audience of this output is the academic community, both in Serbian and internationally. The goal, in this case, is to introduce the Serbian Wikipedia community as a specific social group to academic circles and inspire other scholars to research this topic.

A poster presentation on the quantitative study presented at the CEE Meeting in 2023, and a presentation of the entire study at the next year's CEE Meeting and Wikimania once we finish it.

Various Wikimedia affiliates and Wikipedia user groups will be the primary audience for this output. We hope that our findings and guidelines on the integration of the new editors, which would be based on them, will be beneficial to them, especially those in the CEE region, and that they can help them in designing initiatives aimed at increasing the retention of the new editor of their languages versions of Wikipedia. Our guidelines will be especially helpful to Wikimedia chapters and user groups who run Wikipedia Educational or GLAM programs and want to attract new editors for the activities within those two programs.

Generally speaking, the findings of this study will be useful for drafting new guidelines on how to deal with new editors. That is, by understanding what motivates and demotivates (new) editors, the Serbian community gets a chance to make the “integration process” a lot better and so make the platform more inviting, thus, hopefully, lowering the number of people who start editing but stop doing it. For example, through the Wikipedia Educational Program in Serbia, which is led by Nebojša Ratković, a large number of students and teachers/professors learn how to edit Wikipedia, so our findings on how to include newcomers and make their first encounter better could directly be implemented and, hopefully, help get more of them interested in editing Wikipedia, thus contributing to it longer. Of course, this was just an example, and it goes without saying that the Serbian Wikipedia community would directly benefit by using our findings, as stated at the begging of this section, and so could other communities by using our model.

Results

edit

The results of the research will also be presented in two parts: first, the result of the quantitative study about the motivation of editors to contribute to Wikipedia in general, and then the focus will be on the qualitative study about the integration of new editors.

Motivational and Demotivational Factors Affecting Content Contribution and Community Participation

edit

The results of the quantitative analysis showcase that content contribution is affected by a mix of extrinsic and intrinsic motivational factors, including self-development, enjoyment, and ideology. It is safe to assume that people who believe that editing Wikipedia enhances their soft skills and tend to enjoy editing Wikipedia will be more likely to contribute to Wikipedia. The data also pointed out that ideology probably has an indirect effect on content contribution. For example, in the case of ideology, it is possible to assume that if editors think that free knowledge is important or they value spreading free knowledge, they tend to enjoy editing Wikipedia more and, for that reason, edit it more in general. This data aligns with the first general hypothesis and with hypothesis H3c (lack of resources did not affect community participation).

Community participation is mostly affected by a mix of intrinsic motivational factors, such as ideology and, to a certain extent, enjoyment (being on the verge of becoming statistically significant). Surprisingly, the data again points out that the effect of ideology on community participation is probably indirect. Based on the data, it is possible to assume that if editors enjoy participating in community activities to the same extent, those who believe that knowledge should be free will participate more than those who don’t. The fact that community participation is affected more by intrinsic motivational factors is in line with the second general hypothesis.

When it comes to demotivational factors, the data points out that they have a bigger effect on content contribution than community participation, especially the lack of resources in Serbian. The data points out that the relationship between the lack of resources and content contribution variables is most likely indirect. Regardless, it is safe to assume that people who tend to perceive that there is a greater lack of resources in Serbian are also less willing to contribute to Wikipedia, which is in line with our third hypothesis.

When it comes to individual variables, the data pointed out that enjoyment, a sense of belonging, self-development and altruism, negative feedback, and a lack of resources were significant predictors of content contribution. However, when it comes to community participation, the only significant predictors were enjoyment and a sense of belonging. Interestingly, the data pointed out that there is a positive correlation between negative feedback and content contribution, which implies that people who receive more negative feedback tend to contribute more to Wikipedia. However, those results could be interpreted in the sense that editors who are more active on Wikipedia tend to receive more negative feedback than editors who are not as active, or that editors who contribute to Wikipedia more tend to take negative feedback more seriously since they enjoy editing Wikipedia.

The results of this study, to a certain extent, differ from Xu and Li’s results. It remains unclear what caused those discrepancies, but one potential answer is the sample size. Namely, since the Serbian Wikipedia community is much smaller than the Chinese one, it is impossible to reach a sample size like theirs, and it is hard to obtain a sample size large enough to get reliable quantitative data generally. Because of that, in order to collect reliable data from editors in smaller communities (such as Serbian), a qualitative methodological framework is recommended. The practical implications of the results of this study suggest that, while it may be challenging to persuade individuals to value free knowledge or increase their altruism, there are measures that can be taken to enhance the enjoyment of editing Wikipedia and participating in its community for editors. Additionally, addressing the issue of resource scarcity in Serbian could bolster editors’ contributions to Wikipedia.

New Editors’ Experiences on Wikipedia

edit

Our analysis showed that when it comes to the experiences of new editors, they are more or less uniform. Namely, all of the respondents agree that while they would like to contribute more to Wikipedia, their biggest constraint is finding the time to do so. However, they are motivated for one of three reasons: 1) they wish to write about local topics, 2) they want to write about things that they are passionate about, and 3) they want to write about important topics so that people have access to information about them.

However, while our respondents didn’t experience anything that demotivated them to such an extent that they stopped contributing, they pointed out several factors that they said demotivated them and/or would have demotivated them if it happened during the beginning of their editing experience:

Having articles deleted: The most common response by far was articles being deleted. Anđela summarised the problem well stating “Every one of us, though, thinks in a certain way and that is fine if there is too much disinformation being spread, but if that is not the case, I think that it would be better to draw the editor’s attention to the issue because if they don’t realize what it is and what they are doing wrong, they will continue writing articles like that one and lose their motivation because of it.” Our respondents even knew of cases where they saw this as a demotivating factor, like Kristina who said “I know of a situation that didn’t happen to me, but to a volunteer, where the person wrote the article several times, and each time the article was deleted. And no one told that person what the problem was, or why the article was being deleted.” And while she understood why the other editors responded like that, she saw the problem with such an approach—“these people have been editing articles for years and have seen it all, and they’ve had enough. So, it’s somehow logical that they would prefer to just delete the article rather than having to go back and forth a thousand times. I understand that somehow, but I think that in those situations, the approach needs to be different, and there needs to be more contact between the individual deleting the articles and the beginner volunteer who doesn’t know what they’re doing.”

Vandalism: The second most common response was vandalism. Of course, even the respondents themselves knew that vandalism represents a problem generally, but they noted that new editors seeing someone adding false or unsubstantiated information to articles that they put a lot of effort into would probably demotivate new users.

Unconstructive criticism: While contemplating the community’s role in the new editor’s experience of Wikipedia generally, Katarina noted that its influence “depends on the attitude that community members adopt towards someone new. For example, if they approach them quite negatively, criticize without offering solutions, and generally don’t help... That is, they don’t offer constructive criticism, just highlight what was done poorly and don't help. I think that discourages new editors quite a bit. Again, someone might argue that it takes up their time, but I think that not getting a response like that can greatly contribute to the turning away of new people.”

Seeing changes in your article without explanation: One of the respondents, Dušica, brought to our attention something that happened to her and that she thinks could demotivate others. Namely, she experienced an editor following her actions and constantly making changes to her articles without any explanation as to why these edits were made/appropriate, hence she didn’t know what (if anything) she was doing wrong.

Building on this, as a part of the interview, we also asked the respondents what could have been better. More than half of them thought that Wikipedia itself couldn’t be improved and/or that there was nothing that could be done to improve the community, though that was because they saw no mechanism that could be used to enforce the changes, e.g. Katarina, saw conflicts between editors on Wikipedia and believes that the community can significantly demotivate new editors if they approach them solely with unconstructive criticism, which is why she believes that the communication between editors should be more friendly, though such actions can’t be mandated or enforced. However, based on their own experiences, our respondents were able to identify some improvements that would have made their experiences better or, at least, help others have a better experience when starting out:

Having a mentor: Several respondents noted that one of the most important things that could help integrate new editors is having someone from the community that they can rely on when they need some information, need some feedback, have something that they want to check, etc. In fact, having someone that you know you can rely on is perhaps the most important factor. Namely, a significant portion of the respondents who started editing Wikipedia through projects organized by Wikimedia Serbia or others, such as editing Wikipedia as a part of their courses at university, highlighted that they valued their close relationship with Wikimedia Serbia, their lecturers, and volunteers in the projects very much and that it helped them a lot.

Having online tutorials: Even more respondents noted that having a concise and easily navigable tutorial which they could turn to whenever they aren’t sure about how to do something would have made their experience much better. One of the respondents, Petar, even had an idea on how to make them, stating “For example, it might be worthwhile to use YouTube or video clips to visually, verbally, and through images guide individuals through the process of working on Wikipedia. For instance, creating a video of 5-10 minutes where everything is demonstrated: how to create a title, how to craft the text, how to create an info box, categories, all those additional buttons, how to add images, and the process of uploading images to Wikimedia. Furthermore, it might be beneficial to even create a video segment explaining how to upload images to Wikimedia and how to determine the Creative Commons license, because Creative Commons licenses are still a mystery to me and truly unfamiliar. Perhaps, a collaborative project within Wikipedia to create a short video of 5-10-20-30 minutes that explains these Creative Commons licenses and how something falls under one license or another, what the criteria are, and to provide some assistance to people regarding this matter.”

Having an online training session: Building on the online tutorial idea Petar also thought that it would be a great idea to have “an online classroom” once a week, or as often as it is needed, where new editors would get a chance to ask others and more experienced editors would have a place to exchange ideas with other editors.

Having someone go over their first articles before publishing: An interesting idea shared by one of the respondents, Ljiljana, was to have articles “reviewed by different editors before they’re posted. I think this would largely reduce spelling errors, and secondly, it would avoid potentially having something incorrectly written.”

Highlighting to the community who are new editors and how to approach them: Going off of her own somewhat negative experience, Dušica thought that it would be a great idea to share with the community who are the new editors that joined recently and how to approach them. In her own words, “It could be through introducing new editors and having it somewhere published that ‘these are the new editors, please show them some consideration as they are new’.”

Conclusion

edit

Based on our findings, we would recommend implementing the following actions in order to help in the integration of new editors:

1) Implementing a Mentorship Programme

One of the most important things that communities could do is implement a volunteer-led mentorship programme, which would be open for anyone interested in “acting as a guide” to new editors, but still have a uniform systematic approach. That is, the mentors would reach out to new editors, introduce themselves and mention that they are here for the new editor if they have any questions at any point, share the tutorials (see below), offer to go over the new editor’s first article with them and, ideally, also offer to go over everything with them on an online call. As our research has shown, the current system of being randomly assigned a mentor which actually exists on Serbian Wikipedia doesn’t yield positive results; once someone is assigned a mentor, if the new editor doesn’t reach out to them first, it is possible for the mentor to never even exchange a message with the mentee, which one of our respondents noted. In fact, the whole research showcased the flaws of the current system because, despite being assigned a mentor through it, more than a third of the respondents proposed “some kind of mentorship” as a novel idea that would have helped them. Because of that, we would argue for the programme to be more uniform and systematic, as described above since there is an evident need for it on the side of the respondents.

2) Creating Textual and Video Online Tutorials

A close second, according to our study, would be the creation of tutorials in the local language that would be shared with the new editors, ideally by their mentor, once they create an account, and which would be available for them to consult at any time when they aren’t sure about something or don’t know how to do something. We believe that the best option would be to have several short video-based tutorials that would cover the most important parts of the editing process, as well as online textual tutorials that would explain how to do something specific, but would be linked together through hyperlinks and easily navigable thanks to the utilization of keywords so that someone can find the sections and subsections they need. However, it is important to highlight here that it wouldn’t be enough just to create the tutorials and post them online–it would be important to share them with the new editors, either through the mentorship programme or in another way, because our research has shown that if they are not pointed out, new editors might not even come across them. Namely, Wikimedia Serbia created such tutorials in Serbian, however, several respondents still proposed it as a novel idea since they weren’t familiar with them.

3) Adding Banners and “Thank Yous”

Another action that would possibly help with the integration of new editors would be to try and foster good interactions between them and the community. Namely, it is to be expected that the contributions made by new editors might not be up to the standard of experienced editors, even if they meet all the necessary requirements. As a result and based on our findings, we believe that it would be worth it to include banners or some other markers on the articles created by editors that just joined, at least during the “first few days,” i.e. on their first few articles, which would inform other editors that this contribution was made by a new editor and offer a short overview of how to interact with them: thanking them, offering constructive criticism, explaining why some parts were deleted and/or changed, etc. Of course, there is no way to be sure that the editors will follow the recommendations on how to interact, however, as our study showed that corrections made without contexts and unconstructive criticism can have a discouraging effect on new editors, it would be beneficial to try to foster a better interaction in this way.

4) Trying To Foster Offline Interaction

While the Wikipedia community is first and foremost an online community, several respondents found offline interactions quite important for them. The reason behind that is the fact that despite belonging to a “community,” editing Wikipedia is mostly a solo activity that one does while alone. As a result, our respondents admitted that they enjoyed meeting up with other editors, with one actively stating that she would prefer having more in-person edit-a-thons that she could attend. And, these events also tend to have a significant impact on our respondents’ sense of belonging to a community because four of our respondents stated that they never communicate with other editors, and 7 of the 11 respondents said that they never collaborate with other editors, with one of them even being confused as she always saw editing Wikipedia as an “individual activity.” As a result, it would be worth it for branches of the Wikimedia Foundation and local user groups to try to invest some time into organizing in-person events, be it meetups or edit-a-thons, as these activities would help create a sense of community, which would be especially beneficial to interested new editors who are just joyning said community.

Because of the experiences shared with us by the respondents and our own knowledge of the wider Wikipedia community, we strongly believe that implementing and promoting these actions would help improve the experiences that new editors have when joining the community, and help with the integration of new editors regardless of the language version in question.

Financial documentation

edit

Budget table

edit
Nr. Expense Category Item description Intended Budget Actual Spent Currency Notes
1. Personnel Support Nevena Rudinac 3,000.00 2,982.36 EUR
2. Personnel Support Nebojša Ratković 4,150.00 4,149.98 EUR
3. Personnel Support Miloš Todorović 11,200.00 10,802.46 EUR
4. Compute Resources SurveyMonkey software 550.00 582.07 EUR The price is higher due to the added tax on foreign products and services.
5. Dissemination Activities Translating the report into Russian 520.00 466.11 EUR
6. Other Miscellaneous expenses 2,000.00 968.51 EUR Book vouchers for interviewees, administrative costs, courier costs.
7. Personnel Support Data Analyst 500.00 474.21 EUR
8. Personnel Support WMRS Employees 0.00 1,494.30 EUR
Total 21,920.00 21,920.00 EUR

Summary of funding

edit
  • Total project budget (from your approved grant submission): 21,920.00 EUR
  • Total amount requested from WMF (from your approved grant submission): 21,920.00 EUR
  • Total amount spent on this project (this total should be the total calculated from the table above): 21,920.00 EUR
  • Total amount of WMF grant funds spent on this project: 21,920.00 EUR
  • Are there additional sources of revenue that funded any part of this project? NO

Remaining funds

edit
  • Are there any grant funds remaining? NO
  • Please list the total amount (specify currency) remaining here:

Notes: Item number 8 in the budget table was approved by the General Support Fund and Research Fund Committee to cover the loss of government benefits for employees.

More information

edit
  1. Konieczny, P. (2009). Wikipedia: community or social movement?. Interface: a journal for and about social movements.
  2. Butler, B., Joyce, E., & Pike, J. (2008, April). Don't look now, but we've created a bureaucracy: the nature and roles of policies and rules in Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1101-1110).
  3. Morgan, J.T., Geiger, R.S., Pinchuck, M., & Shawn Walker. (2011) New user help requests. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:NewUserHe lp-FullResearchReport.
  4. Panciera, K., Halfaker, A., & Terveen, L. (2009, May). Wikipedians are born, not made: a study of power editors on Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the ACM 2009 international conference on Supporting group work (pp. 51-60).
  5. Faulkner, R., Walling, S., & Pinchuk, M. (2012, August). Etiquette in Wikipedia: Weening new editors into productive ones. In Proceedings of the Eighth Annual International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (pp. 1-4).
  6. Halfaker, A., Geiger, R. S., Morgan, J. T., & Riedl, J. (2013). The rise and decline of an open collaboration system: How Wikipedia’s reaction to popularity is causing its decline. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(5), 664-688.
  7. Zhang, A. F., Wang, R., Blohm, E., Budak, C., Robert Jr, L. P., & Romero, D. M. (2019, July). Participation of new editors after times of shock on Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (Vol. 13, pp. 560-571).
  8. Halfaker, A., Geiger, R. S., Morgan, J. T., & Riedl, J. (2013). The rise and decline of an open collaboration system: How Wikipedia’s reaction to popularity is causing its decline. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(5), 664-688.
  9. Morgan, J. T., Bouterse, S., Walls, H., & Stierch, S. (2013, February). Tea and sympathy: crafting positive new user experiences on Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 839-848).
  10. Glott, R., Schmidt, P., & Ghosh, R. (2010).Wikipedia survey--overview of results. United Nations University: Collaborative Creativity Group, http://www.wikipediasurvey.org/docs/Wikipedia_Ove rview_15March2010-FINAL.pdf.
  11. Cabrera, B., Ross, B., Dado, M., & Heisel, M. (2018, June). The gender gap in Wikipedia talk pages. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (Vol. 12, No. 1).
  12. Collier, B., & Bear, J. (2012, February). Conflict, criticism, or confidence: An empirical examination of the gender gap in Wikipedia contributions. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 383-392).
  13. Panciera, K., Halfaker, A., & Terveen, L. (2009, May). Wikipedians are born, not made: a study of power editors on Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the ACM 2009 international conference on Supporting group work (pp. 51-60).
  14. Reboot and the Wikimedia Foundation. (2017, April 25). New Editor Experiences research framework. Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved March 21, 2023, from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:New_Editor_Experiences_research_framework,_April_2017.pdf
  15. Baytiyeh, H., & Pfaffman, J. (2010). Volunteers in Wikipedia: Why the community matters. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(2), 128-140.
  16. Asadi, S., Ghafghazi, S., & Jamali, H. R. (2013). Motivating and discouraging factors for Wikipedians: the case study of Persian Wikipedia. Library Review, 62(4/5), 237-252.
  17. Xu, B., & Li, D. (2015). An empirical study of the motivations for content contribution and community participation in Wikipedia. Information & management, 52(3), 275-286.
  18. Arazy, O., Liifshitz-Assaf, H., Nov, O., Daxenberger, J., Balestra, M., & Cheshire, C. (2017, February). On the" how" and" why" of emergent role behaviors in Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work and social computing (pp. 2039-2051).
  19. Peddibhotla, N. B., & Subramani, M. R. (2007). Contributing to public document repositories: A critical mass theory perspective. Organization Studies, 28(3), 327-346.
  20. Oreg, S., & Nov, O. (2008). Exploring motivations for contributing to open source initiatives: The roles of contribution context and personal values. Computers in human behavior, 24(5), 2055-2073.
  21. Cho, H., Chen, M., & Chung, S. (2010). Testing an integrative theoretical model of knowledge‐sharing behavior in the context of Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(6), 1198-1212.
  22. Yang, H. L., & Lai, C. Y. (2011). Understanding knowledge-sharing behaviour in Wikipedia. Behaviour & Information Technology, 30(1), 131-142.
  23. Oreg, S., & Nov, O. (2008). Exploring motivations for contributing to open source initiatives: The roles of contribution context and personal values. Computers in human behavior, 24(5), 2055-2073.
  24. Peddibhotla, N. B., & Subramani, M. R. (2007). Contributing to public document repositories: A critical mass theory perspective. Organization Studies, 28(3), 327-346.
  25. Cho, H., Chen, M., & Chung, S. (2010). Testing an integrative theoretical model of knowledge‐sharing behavior in the context of Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(6), 1198-1212.
  26. Peddibhotla, N. B., & Subramani, M. R. (2007). Contributing to public document repositories: A critical mass theory perspective. Organization Studies, 28(3), 327-346.
  27. Peddibhotla, N. B., & Subramani, M. R. (2007). Contributing to public document repositories: A critical mass theory perspective. Organization Studies, 28(3), 327-346.
  28. Nov, O. (2007). What motivates Wikipedians?. Communications of the ACM, 50(11), 60-64.
  29. Peddibhotla, N. B., & Subramani, M. R. (2007). Contributing to public document repositories: A critical mass theory perspective. Organization Studies, 28(3), 327-346.
  30. Nov, O. (2007). What motivates Wikipedians?. Communications of the ACM, 50(11), 60-64.
  31. Cho, H., Chen, M., & Chung, S. (2010). Testing an integrative theoretical model of knowledge‐sharing behavior in the context of Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(6), 1198-1212.
  32. Peddibhotla, N. B., & Subramani, M. R. (2007). Contributing to public document repositories: A critical mass theory perspective. Organization Studies, 28(3), 327-346.
  33. Nov, O. (2007). What motivates Wikipedians?. Communications of the ACM, 50(11), 60-64.
  34. Cho, H., Chen, M., & Chung, S. (2010). Testing an integrative theoretical model of knowledge‐sharing behavior in the context of Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(6), 1198-1212.
  35. Xu, B., & Li, D. (2015). An empirical study of the motivations for content contribution and community participation in Wikipedia. Information & management, 52(3), 275-286.
  36. Xu, B., & Li, D. (2015). An empirical study of the motivations for content contribution and community participation in Wikipedia. Information & management, 52(3), 275-286.
  37. Bryant, S. L., Forte, A., & Bruckman, A. (2005, November). Becoming Wikipedian: transformation of participation in a collaborative online encyclopedia. In Proceedings of the 2005 international ACM SIGGROUP conference on Supporting group work (pp. 1-10).
  38. Cho, H., Chen, M., & Chung, S. (2010). Testing an integrative theoretical model of knowledge‐sharing behavior in the context of Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(6), 1198-1212.
  39. Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2000). “It is what one does”: why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice. The journal of strategic information systems, 9(2-3), 155-173.
  40. Koh, J., Kim, Y. G., & Kim, Y. G. (2003). Sense of virtual community: A conceptual framework and empirical validation. International journal of electronic commerce, 8(2), 75-94.
  41. Cho, H., Chen, M., & Chung, S. (2010). Testing an integrative theoretical model of knowledge‐sharing behavior in the context of Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(6), 1198-1212.
  42. Nov, O. (2007). What motivates Wikipedians?. Communications of the ACM, 50(11), 60-64.
  43. Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you're having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS quarterly, 665-694.
  44. Stewart, K. J., & Gosain, S. (2006). The impact of ideology on effectiveness in open source software development teams. Mis Quarterly, 291-314.
  45. Cho, H., Chen, M., & Chung, S. (2010). Testing an integrative theoretical model of knowledge‐sharing behavior in the context of Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(6), 1198-1212.
  46. Asadi, S., Ghafghazi, S., & Jamali, H. R. (2013). Motivating and discouraging factors for Wikipedians: the case study of Persian Wikipedia. Library Review, 62(4/5), 237-252.
  47. Barnidge, M., & De Zúñiga, H. G. (2017). Amos (software). The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods, 1-3.
  48. Ullman, J. B., & Bentler, P. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling. Handbook of Psychology, Second Edition, 2.
  49. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field methods, 18(1), 59-82.
  50. Smith, J. A. (2004). Reflecting on the development of interpretative phenomenological analysis and its contribution to qualitative research in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 1(1), 39-54.