Are Wikipedians Really Gamers? A ludological perspective on motivations to participate in social media

Brian KeeganProgram in Media, Technology, and Society

School of Communication

Northwestern University

Do the mechanisms that make games “fun” also motivate contributions to online communities?

Munroe, “Duty Calls.” xkcd.org/386/

Outline• Why did Nupedia fail, but Wikipedia succeed?• How do existing motivational theories fall short?• Can games inform design of better mechanisms?

What was Nupedia?• Open-source web encyclopedia founded by Jimbo

Wales and Larry Sanger in March 2000• Strong emphasis on rigorous expert peer-review

• 7-step editorial process, 5 distinct roles contingent upon qualifications, content management on listservs & web services

• 9 articles after 9 months, 25 articles after 21 months• Atonality, Hydatius, Irish traditional music, SNOBOL 4,

polymerase chain reaction, foot-and-mouth disease, Charles S. Pierce, quasispecies model, plasmids

• A “wiki-pedia” launched in January 2001 to deal with content drought, generates 600 articles in two weeks

• Nupedia folds in March 2002, Wikipedia has over 20,000 articles by then in English alone

Whither success?• Centralization of project management, elitist emphasis

on credentialed expertise, bureaucratic rules all contributed to Nupedia’s failure (Poe 2006, Shirky 2006)

• But it probably was not very fun

• But why did Wikipedia succeed?• No strong leadership or social identity• Fundamental mission remained same as Nupedia• Preponderance of rules• Pervasive public goods problem• Contributing was more fun?

Wikipedia paradox• Why does anyone contribute to it?

• Does not provide a community for disseminating opinions (Usenet, blogs, etc.)

• Does not fulfill imperative for relationship management and interpersonal communication (Facebook, Twitter, etc.)

• Does not provide an outlet and community for hobbyists to share their art (Flickr, YouTube, etc.)

• Writing encyclopedias was never a popular hobby or social activity

• Survey of Wikipedia editors demonstrates “fun” strongest predictor of motivation to contribution and best-correlated with contribution level (Nov 2007)

Despair?• How do we design systems that motivate individuals to

have fun?

• We make games!• Do non-games have design features that encourage

participants to approach it as a game?• If so, can we use ludic mechanisms to design features and

motivate contributions to online communities?

WHERE’S THE FUN IN EXISTING THEORIES?

Intrinsic & extrinsic motivations• Intrinsic

• Self-acceptance, personal growth, social identity, helpfulness• “I want to do it”

• Extrinsic• Success, recognition, image• “I ought to do it”

Wikipedia culture: extrinsic?• Wikipedians as collectivists

• Mutually-assigned identity defined in terms of solidarity, coercision, duties, and reputation strong external motivations

• Userboxes, enforcement, WikiProjects, bureaucratic roles

Wikipedia culture: intrinsic?• Wikipedians as individualists

• Volunteers motivated by autonomy, shared interests, curiosity, enjoyment strong internal motivations

• Anonymous edits, solo editors, bounded interaction with other hobbyists, no accreditation\professional barriers, wide audience

Because Wikipedia exhibits elements of both individualism and collectivism, the intrinsic-extrinsic distinction omits complex interacting motivations to participate

Motivational theoriesExamples Antecedents Consequences Shortcomings

Well-being Self-determination, flow, uses & gratification

Autonomy, congruence of skills & challenges, needs, interest

Intrinsic: Happiness, enjoyment, gratification, self-realization

Subjective outcomes, individually-determined

Knowledge-sharing

Management information systems, functionalism

Tenure, trust, reciprocity, acceptance, integration

Extrinsic: Success, recognition, skill development

May not apply to large, decentralized, diverse, volunteer communities

Social dilemmas

Public goods, commons

Limited resources, conflicting incentives, externalities

Participatory rule-making, enforcement, dispute resolution

Coercive, non-competitive, non-experiential

Social identity

Common identity, social bonds

Categorization, intergroup comparison, interaction, similarity

Normative conformity, participation, tolerance, openness, robustness

Attention overload, deindividuation, plural interests & identities in large communities

Ludic ? Preparation, rules, mechanics, abilities, skill

Feedback, sensation, fellowship, discovery, expression, dominion

Reductionist, deterministic

LUDOLOGY

Games as conflicts• Games are fundamentally interpersonal (Crawford 1984)

• Employing abilities and skill to prevail against an opponent doing the same generates emergent feedback and unique challenges

• Intensity of interaction (collaboration or conflict) is well-correlated with gratification

• Mastery problem: • Expert players cannot benefit from trivial challenges • Inexpert players must be motivated to continue playing

• Fun comes from challenges at margin of ability• Challenges must be persistent, novel, and well-matched to skill• Failure should have a cost, but also motivate iteration rather than

abandonment• What’s the central conflict in Wikipedia?

• Making your contributions last!

Wikipedia’s ludic aesthetics• Games assume many possible aesthetic goals that

constitute “fun” (Hunicke, LeBlanc, Zubec)

• Sensation: changes can be immediate and drastic• Fantasy: Imagine themselves as encyclopedists, good

samaritans, etc.• Narrative: Appealing to precedent and consensus to justify

contributions• Challenge: Ensuring a contribution will remain permanent or

opinion will prevail• Fellowship: Disputes and discussion resolved by consensus-

formation rally the troops!• Discovery: Random article walks and serendipitous encounters• Expression: Writing something on website viewed by millions!• Submission: Develop reputation and dominion based on your

own mundane interests

Ludic aestheticsNupedia Wikipedia

Sensation (stimulating) - +

Fantasy (make-believe) --- +

Narrative (drama) +

Challenge (obstacles) +++ ++

Fellowship (interpersonal) +++

Discovery (exploration) -- ++

Expression (fulfillment) + +++

Submission (dominion) +++ +

Implications

• Encourage curiosity• Permit plural motivations and rewards• Maintain openness and ambiguity• Support social engagement and interaction• Discourage exclusive control

Ludic concepts• “Ludemes” are basic units of gameplay (Koster & Wright 2004)

• Preparation: multiple possible moves, physical training, etc.• Space: game board, pitch, etc.• Fundamental mechanic: move pieces, put ball in net, etc.• Challenges: pieces move certain ways, someone guarding net• Abilities to solve challenges: piece moves capture other

pieces, passing ball to multiple players, etc.• Skill required to use abilities: foresight, dexterity, etc.• Complex and emergent feedback: opponents alter tactics and

strategies in response

• How did Wikipedia’s ludemes differ from Nupedia’s ludemes?

Ludemes in Nupedia & WikipediaNupedia Wikipedia

Preparation Accredited knowledge Experiential knowledge

Space Boundaries of website Boundaries of website

Mechanics Submitting complete articles

Contributing incremental edits

Challenges Gaining editorial sanction Ensuring contribution stability

Abilities Appeals to rules, precedents, expertise

Appeals to rules, precedents, consensus

Skill All of: researching, writing, editing, convincing

Any of: researching, writing, editing, convincing

Feedback Publication, acknowledgement

Publication, acknowledgement,

iteration

Implications

• Encourage curiosity• Permit plural motivations and rewards• Maintain openness and ambiguity• Support social engagement and interaction• Discourage exclusive control• Lower barriers to participation• Provide immediate feedback• Failure cannot be fatal

(Gaver et al. 2004)

HOW CAN WE DESIGN IT?

Designing online communities• All online communities embody technical and social

choices influencing how visitors and members interact with information and community (Ren, Kraut, Kiesler 2007)

• Architecture, features, interactions, organizational structures, policies: off-topic discussions, size of community, etc.

• Successful “real world” communities facing social dilemmas allow members to participate in rule-making, enforcement, and resolution (Ostrom 1991)

Ludic prescriptions• Promote curiosity, exploration, and reflection as means

of generating emergent play types• Reward intrinsic motivations that support social

engagement and interaction• Maintain openness and ambiguity to generate tension

and challenges• Challenges must promote feedback and outcomes that

are discrete and non-trivial • Also allow parties to challenges to fail safely and iterate

CONCLUSIONS

Broader implications• Wikis being used by vital social actors without accurate

representations of users’ motivations to contribute• Defense community, intelligence agencies, scientific

collaborators, journalists, and other vital civic/social actors

• Scholars need to abandon monolithic conceptions of “fun” and “enjoyment” and describe particular mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics (Hunicke, LeBlanc, Zubek)

Future work

Wikipedia is an MMORPG (!)a sequel to the game Nupedia, an encyclopedia-themed MMORPG in a hack and slash and "article roaming" style

… Players can accumulate EXP (edits), allowing them to advance to higher levels (Wikipedians by edits). Players develop a unique distribution of stats (edit counts), and can choose between a number of classes (user access levels & metaphors for users’ editing behavior)

…most players prefer to accumulate different types of stars (featured articles and barnstars) and various icons (WP:DYK and good articles) which other players can award them.

Players can take on quests (WikiProjects), fight boss battles (featured article candidates), enter battle arenas (administrator intervention against vandalism), and even take class change trials to become Game Masters (administrators).

It is possible to stumble upon random encounters (speedy deletion) and defeat such monsters.”

“

THANK YOU & GAME ON!

bkeegan@northwestern.edu

@bkeegan