My contributions to OMOCAT’s wikipedia page were motivated by a number of factors; firstly, creating and/or editing a wikipedia article is a project central to my class, and thus, central to my grades. This can be considered an extrinsic motivation, because I am earning credit for my work that will then contribute towards my college degree. However, because OMOCAT is an artist I care about and someone I have fun researching about, there are also intrinsic motivations in play. By working on a page that is about a topic I am interested in, I found myself becoming more excited, because the motivation behind the project was not just extrinsic. All of these benefits—my grade, writing about OMOCAT—weighed out the cost—my time—in my mind, so this was a project I thoroughly enjoyed.

In terms of commitment, if I was to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, I believe it would be an affective and/or normative commitment to the platform. Before taking this class, I have contributed to fandom wikis, which are unofficial and less regulated than Wikipedia, but are similar nonetheless. My engagement with fandom is intrinsic, and rooted in identity-based commitment; I feel connected to a certain media, that I am a part of its community (fandom) and I enjoy engaging with it. These positive emotions associated with fandom are indicative of an affective commitment. Additionally, because I tend to research and analyze content for my own enjoyment, I feel that I can add specific information to Wikis that others are missing out on. This is an instance of normative commitment; I feel an obligation to contribute my knowledge to these fandom spaces, especially when the spaces are underdeveloped or missing key information. If I was required to continue using Wikipedia for my class, then it could also be considered a needs-based commitment, where I need to engage with Wikipedia in order to pass my class and obtain a certain grade.

As a newcomer to wikipedia, WikiEdu’s tutorials allowed me to avoid most situations where I could have been a threat to Wikipedia’s order—specifically, I could have been a clueless and uninformed newcomer, who was acting in good faith while editing articles, but disrupting the platform nonetheless. As helpful as WikiEdu’s tutorials were, there is room for improvement, especially when compared to the ease of navigating other sites such as Zooniverse. Zooniverse—a platform that allows people to classify and interact with data for a variety of scientific projects—had very specific directions on what was being asked of the user, whereas on Wikipedia, this is more broad and open-ended. There are a multitude of jobs to do on Wikipedia, and it is almost overwhelming when one is just beginning to sort through the hundreds of stubs and unwritten articles. Assistance from our professor was required in order to choose our specific projects, and ensure our process in editing and publishing the page was going smoothly.

Wikipedia could potentially collaborate with smaller wikis—such as fandom wikis—to redirect users to wikis that cover fictional worlds and characters. Wikipedia’s focus is on relevant topics, people, etc. that are noteworthy, but there is more to be researched and discussed besides what Wikipedia deems “noteworthy”. It is worthwhile to connect a Wikipedia article to, perhaps, a smaller wiki that goes into more precise detail about what that article is talking about: specifically, what might not be noteworthy to the average person, but would interest the person visiting that initial Wikipedia article. An example of this would be connecting the OmoriWiki to the OMORI page that is currently on Wikipedia; a user could get a general idea of what OMORI is from Wikipedia’s article, and details on OMORI on the game’s wiki. At the same time, Wikipedia wouldn’t have to change their policy for notability, since these other articles would be under a different wiki that is specific to that fandom. I believe this could encourage others who have existing affective commitment to their online fandom spaces to also interact with Wikipedia, for intrinsic reasons similar to my own.

One is able to edit wikipedia articles without an account, however, they are encouraged to create their own account, and credibility can be built when one has a recognizable username. I am curious about what might happen if only users were allowed to edit Wikipedia. This would limit the nearly-completely anonymous editors—only identifiable with an IP address—from making changes, and push them to create accounts. In terms of the Marx model of anonymity, only a few of these identity requirements are needed; information about the individual—such as a username used across the platform by the same user, one’s IP address, and if the user indicated interest in topics—behavioral. There is still privacy when a user creates an account; however, one might be hesitant to join the Wikipedia community “officially” through an account—seeing it as a commitment that they might not want.

Coming from a long history of engaging with online fandom, I recommend platforms such as Wikipedia to encourage users who would participate for these intrinsic reasons—out of passion for what they love or admire. Oftentimes, this motivation is enough for one to do thorough and good-quality work, even when there are costs such as time. I have experienced this myself during this project; because of my strong interest in OMOCAT, I found myself going beyond what was required of me, and produced a high-quality article as a result.