Discussion On User Interaction Issues In Wikipedia

Discussion on User Interaction Issues in Wikipedia Cheng Kian hong, Yew Kai Liang, Nurhazman Abdul Aziz Division of Information Studies School of Communication and Information Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Email: [email protected]

Abstract. The discussion in this term paper is compiled from a survey conducted to introduce one of the Internet Communities’ tools to a pool of technical students taking basic Information Technology module in one of the local institute of technology education centre. The main objective of this paper is to identify user interaction issues and to measure the level of initial acceptance, such as perceived usefulness and ease of use for the target users. A total of 40 participants have taken part and also shared their views with regards on their diversity background (including education and interest level) towards the usage of Wikipedia. Using the initial components of Technology Acceptance Model (perceived usefulness and perceive ease of use) (Davis, 1989), and survey instrumental approaches, data were captured, studied and discussed to identify the user interaction issues for this target group of users. The results show that, even Wikipedia is known as one of the fastest interesting tool in the Internet Communities, there is still room of improvements for the Wikipedia’s practitioners to consider when building, maintaining or contributing information (articles) to the site. Interest, and perception were identified to have the strong measurement capabilities in the acceptance model, whereas incentives and motivation was measured the weakest.

1 Introduction With the rapid advancement and increase in the use of Internet, a number of individuals are continuously using the Internet to perform a wide range of tasks, especially in searching information to give them some understanding of their desired search. In the past, if a user wishes to know certain information’s explanation, such as “What is Technology Acceptance Model?” They will turn to the library’s reference section or encyclopaedia. Today, the pattern of information searching has changed tremendously. Users will use the following steps to retrieve and understand information, such as (i) “Google” desired information with the command “wiki: Technology Acceptance Model” at Google’s search box, (ii) the retrieved information is retrieved from Wikipedia as the highest and closest algorithm’s search results, (iii) click to the closest Wiki’s explanation, and (iv) read the information that is being contributed and shared briefly. Following that, the users will then explore all the inter-relationship of the articles with the sites. In order to give these seekers a better illustration, links to the original source are provided. This type of fast learning retrieval information has gained growing popularity among the students. In a related online learning, there are two pertinent clusters that are interested in this type of user interaction, such as (i) the development of good designs and (ii) the assessment of student’s satisfaction with online learning tools, such as

Page 1 of 19

Wikipedia. (Kira, He & Saade, 2005) Therefore, there is a strong expectation level that surrounds the development and use of such tools due to its unique capabilities, characters, and deliverables. 1.1 Understanding the Internet Communities The Internet (web) has been recently materialized and hailed as a revolutionary in the fight for creativity and interaction areas in the information industry. This is due to the strong development and support that is found in the core movement, especially the area of work by the open source community. They have addressed it as Web 2.0 (or Internet 2.0), where a high level of user interaction has taken place between the site (system) and users (individual). Moreover, today, an increasing number of individuals want to be the part of development roles. This phenomenon can be observed in many tools implemented in the Internet Communities, such as Weblogs, Wikipedia and other social networking tools. Szmigin and Reppel (2004) have discussed the importance of understanding Internet communities using a conceptual framework that is able to deliver the objective and serves as a catalyst of loyalty in an online (or wired) community. In the framework, both also have proven the core components of a community identified by Muniz and O’Guinn (2001). They are (i) an exclusive sense of belonging to a unique group, (ii) a code of practices that is recognized and associated with this group, and (iii) a code of rules and conduct that are portrayed in the group. On top of that, this framework has illustrated the common bonding in a triangular matter that consists of interactivity, service value and technical infrastructure found in the Internet communities. (See appendix A) In addition, sub-categories such as responsibility for interaction, foster for interaction, accessibility (ease of use), speed and reliability are further discussed and elaborated by Szmigin and Reppel (2004) in the framework. While, in a related evaluation of information accessibility in Internet communities, Teo et al (2003) has examined the impact of two critical issues such as (i) accessibility and (ii) community adaptability. Furthermore, in this paper, Teo et al (2003) has used the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to investigate in the evaluation and sustainability for learning purposes, especially for virtual learning community, such as Wikipedia. Thus, in this environment, these are the key factors that con-tribute and align the high user interaction issues with the functions of the system. With this back-ground, the proliferation of Wikipedia as a rapid growing influence has dawned in this modern hybrid age from the user’s interactivity, cognitive and interface.

2 Wikipedia With the advent development in semantic web, the core architecture of Wikipedia (system) is adopted from this approach in order to deliver and achieve a big common objective. In addition, this has created a knowledge based hub, by establishing a strong interconnection of one article to another via hyperlinks. (Krotzsch, Vrandecic & Volkel, 2005) On top of this, one of the key features has resulted in answer of ubiquity and such bonds in Wikipedia for searching and retrieving information fast. Therefore, as a result, Wikipedia has grown beyond the limits of any traditional brick

Page 2 of 19

and mortar of an encyclopaedia. It is also has become one of the highly collaborative sources of encyclopaedic knowledge. (Krotzsch, Vrandecic & Volkel, 2005) Furthermore, in similar related article, Sjoberg (2006) also reported that Wikipedia has gone into a new paradigm in human discourse, where anyone can search a subject that interests users without any traditional portal’s constraints. 2.1 The Raise of Wikipedia One of the advantages in Wikipedia is that anyone can contribute to the information into the system. In addition, contributors also need to observe the three core components that commonly practices in community and as discussed before in this article. In a related article, Stafford and Webb (2006) have identified the advantages in fully utilizing Wikipedia, such as (i) instant collaborative and keeping the group in synchronise, (ii) the ubiquity, (iii) the exciting, immediate and empowering to the contributor’s knowledge and lastly (iv) the writing ethical. In contrast, there will be a tendency to get messier if as the information taxonomy is not governance properly. User also needs to know the minimal knowledge of basic mark-up language in order to participate ethically. Originally, Wikipedia was initially introduced on January 15th, 2001 as a project to produce a free content encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone. (Wikipedia, 2007) Today, Wikipedia is still growing in every aspects to improve the cognitive, interface and interaction of the site, such as (i) creation of the Manual of Style, Policies and Guidelines in Summer 2002, (ii) the use of smart agents to increase the number of article in 2003s, (iii) capabilities in multi-language platform in 2004 and (iv) the level of authentication up to the Internet Protocol address level. (Wikipedia, 2007) On the other hand, a number of projects have adopted the similar concept to deliver such similar contents. For example, Ohio University Libraries has launched a collection of business information resource based on Wikipedia’s platform. While in Deakin University, the university is using customized Wikipedia as part of the student’s elearning process. In addition, in the open-source communities, such as in the development of a photo management system such as Gallery 2.0 or Wordpress, the communities have fully utilised Wikipedia into their own common area to share out the documentation works as well as support works. In short, many researchers would like to understand and study the user interactions in many internet communities’ site, where a new direction of the internet design has taken the communities to new level of content creation and dissemination. Lew (2005) is one of them who have quoted that the Internet communities were touted to facilitate the interactive learning of skills, expertise and experience through human’s interaction and accessing a common repository. Wikipedia is one of the classic examples with all these development happenings around the project’s objective. 2.2 User Interaction in Wikipedia One of the successful factors in the user interaction for Wikipedia with other online reference sources, such as Microsoft Encarta 2006 and Encyclopaedia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2006 is the technical comparisons and specifications. Bouck (2005) has reviewed that it has a high rating eight out of ten points on CNET Review. It is mainly due to the enormous advantages over the rest of installed software and the

Page 3 of 19

minimal usage in the computer memory or fuss about interference from firewalls or anti-virus software. In addition, the service and support of Wikipedia is accessible through a link on each page. This also covers the details of navigation, using and contributing to the system as indicated in the review too. Moreover, according to the Zipf distribution (power law) of website popularity, Wikipedia is an example of a highly disciplined system that involves tens of thousands of random contributors. (Nielsen, 2005; Baker, 2006; Bollier, 2006) Others factors that are discussed and can be found in the structure of Wikipedia is the new ways of thinking such as (i) content over form, (ii) open editing over security and control, (iii) free form con-tent over structured content and (iv) incremental growth over upfront design. (Desilets, Paquet & Vinson, 2005) Furthermore, these four factors contribute enormously in exploiting the technological trajectories in the Internet communities. Tidd et al (2001) have identified that this type of innovation will give a big disruptive change to the information industry. Besides, Majchrzak, Wagner and Yates (2006) have conducted a survey to investigate if Wikipedia is sustainable through focusing on four measures, such as (i) length of time in existence, (ii) number of contributors, (iii) lurkers and (v) frequency with which page area accessed. As a result, many collage students or even academicians depend heavily on the use of Wikipedia to aid their works. On other hand, in a conference at University of Pennsylvania, Wikipedia’s Founder, Jimmy Wales have messaged out that they should not use Wikipedia for school project, serious re-search or even presentation, unless they are confident enough with the actual factual of the original sources. (The Wired Campus, 2006) This could be a problem to meet the user expectation especially in relation to the gulf of execution and evaluation in retrieving the desired of information needed from the system. Therefore, as mentioned, the discussion findings will elaborate further using a certain model that has been adopted to identify the user interaction issues.

3 The Methodology Over the past few years, there are a number of theoretical models and frameworks that have been developed to understand technology better and to measure the success of the adaptation and key performance indicator. Similarly, the main objective of the study is mostly related in four major components such as (i) system, (ii) user, (iii) input and (iv) output as identified by Abowd & Beale (1991). From here, models and frameworks such as Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Task-Technology Fit (TTF), Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) Motivational Model (MM), Theory of Planned Behaviours (TPB) and others are developed further. (Venkatesh et al, 2003) As for this discussion, the focus will be two initial components of Technology Acceptance Model such as perceived usefulness and perceive ease of use (Davis et al, 1989) in details for the area of user interaction issues in Wikipedia. In addition, the external variables will be also discussed through a short data collection to analyse the factors affecting both components.

Page 4 of 19

3.1 Technology Acceptance Model Davis et al (1989) has drawn out a model to forecast the extent of success in users embracing any forms of new information technologies system. It is called Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) where it has adapted from the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) defined by Venkatesh et al (2003) and being elaborated further. Furthermore, this model has been used to investigate a number of systems. Lee et al (2003) has counted a total of 101 relevant articles. In TAM, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use will determine an individual's intention to use a system. It will also align with the intention to use and serve as an intermediary of actual system use. Below, the illustration illustrates the main components of the TAM, which also have the relationship with Attitudes towards Use, Behavioural Intention and Actual System Use, including the External Variables, Perceived Usefulness and Ease of Use. Technology Acceptance Model

In this discussion paper, the main focuses are the two initial components of TAM as explained below. This is one of the initial pertaining information in order to identify the external variables and to measure further with the attitude towards use and behaviour intention, to contribute as the key performance indicators of the system implemented. 

Perceived usefulness is defined as “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance”. (Davis et al, 1989).



Perceived ease of use is defined as “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free from effort". (Davis et al, 1989).

In addition, the strength of the TAM is that by utilising a small simplistic but fundamentally crucial number of determinants, an accurate forecast of user acceptance with the focus on new information technologies and/or systems can be generated in this framework. (Venkatesh, 2000; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Hu, Clark & Ma, 2003) Recently, the evolution of the TAM is added further with the recent integration of the four core determinants of IT usage, such as (i) performance expectancy, (ii) effort expectancy, (iii) social influence and (iv) facilitating conditions (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Furthermore, these core determinants will aid this discussion briefly to the factors that will lead in the Attitude towards Use and eventually to the Behaviour Intention. As TAM is widely used in a mature research field in information technology research, it is important for the discussion to take toward this path. In addition, user acceptance issues will gain increasing importance as the use of web 2.0 continues to introduce to

Page 5 of 19

the information industry. With this focus, this will lead to the discussion model which will determine the factors in the area of perceived usefulness and ease of use. 3.2 Shaping the Discussion Model The discussion model evaluation for this paper involved the measurement and assessment of a structure model. In order to discuss of this user interaction issues, a short survey’s instrumental questions are designed and categorised into a systematic structure that bond to the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. The illustration (Figure 3.1) below explains the relationships visually. On top of these, the structural paths of models are represented by two general hypotheses generated to address the user interaction. They are such as User Interaction Related Question 1: What is the extent that the users’ perception of Wikipedia is influenced by (i) Wikipedia’s awareness of the technology, (ii) peer and collaboration support and lastly (iii) the readiness for users’ information literacy User Interaction Related Question 2: What is the extent of the user’s perceptions of ease of use of Wikipedia influenced by feelings of (iv) Wikipedia’s self-efficacy, (v) prior experience and (vi) availability resources (Facilitating Conditions)

External Variables (Motivators + Enablers) in relationship with both Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use

With the above related questions addressed, the discussion is lead finally to the last related question that is, the relationship between both perceptions of usefulness, perception of ease of use and eventually to the users’ intention to use Wikipedia.

Page 6 of 19

3.4 Measurement in the External Variables for Perceived Usefulness & Perceived Ease of Use The Technology Acceptance Model has been using two distinct, but interrelated beliefs, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, as the ground for predicting end user acceptance of the technology. In comparison in both factors, a number of studies have found that perceived usefulness has the strongest influence in most systems. (Lopez & Manson, 1997; Venkatesh, 2000) In perceived usefulness, Davis (1989) also described if the relationship between the system and the user performance is high, the acceptance will be a positive and is effective in performing the task(s). Basically, there are a number of theories that can link and bond, such as the Norman’s Model of Interaction (Theng, 2007). This is to shape up the analysis questions in order to understand and justify the hypothesis found in perceived usefulness. Norman’s Model of Interaction (Norman, 1988; Theng, 2007) described five stages (goal, intention, action, perception, evaluation) and three distances (semantic, referential and interferential) to allow the definition of some basic cognitive procedures in the analysis of human interaction with the system. (Rizzo, Marchigiani & Andreadis, 1997) Therefore, in this model, the discussion has used a set of questions that measures of perceived usefulness such as and is catagorised according to the illustration above. Wikipedia Awareness 1. 2. 3.

Have you come across Wikipedia before this introduction Have you refer to Wikipedia before this introduction Do you think Wikipedia is useful when the moment I finish the introduction

Peer & Collaboration Support 4. 5. 6. 7.

Using Wikipedia as a good place of collaboration Using Wikipedia due to the quick response for the contribution / enquires Using Wikipedia due to the freedom of accessibility (no payment requirements) Using Wikipedia due to the freedom of contribution

Readiness for users’ information literacy 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Using Wikipedia is useful to your work (school, general knowledge, interest) Using Wikipedia would increase your general knowledge or studies Using Wikipedia would cater all the information needs Using Wikipedia would enhance the effectiveness as a learner Using Wikipedia as a form of leisure reading and browsing

On the other hand, the perceive ease of use will focus more on the physical interactivity evaluation of using the system, such as the ease of use (user friendly system). In most system, especially web based today, most users would address it as what you see is what you get (WYSIWYG) and they preferred this analogy. In short, the ability of the users to be able to visualise what he or she is doing is one of the important factors in getting the perceived ease of use. Therefore, to measure the perceived ease of use, this discussion will measure using the interaction framework introduced by Abowd and Beale (1991) with questions such as: Wikipedia’s Self-Efficacy 13. How user feel to understand and clarity of Wikipedia’s contents 14. Does Wikipedia has high interactivity level (and easy to insert media) 15. Collaboration on Wikipedia is an easy way to establish, continue and manage

Page 7 of 19

Prior Experience 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

Using Wikipedia does not require a lot of mental effort Is it easy to link and create links from one article to another Overall, Wikipedia would be an easy to use tool Will you use Wikipedia as your prefer choice of reference information Will you recommend Wikipedia to your friends Wikipedia is a good learning tool

Facilitating Condition 22. 23. 24. 25.

How users feel about technical accessibility to Wikipedia (system requirements) Does Wikipedia’s learning contribution is an easy process Is it easy to use and navigate around Wikipedia Wikipedia does not required high level of programming knowledge

With all these components and factors, the survey instrument is carried out to strengthen and give the discussion a better understanding to the user interaction issue in Wikipedia.

4 Survey Results & Discussion The data collection for this discussion was gathered by means of a survey instrument. The survey is made up of the initial twenty questions to measure and justify both external variables that have association with the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. In order to understand the target user better, the questions are scrambled up not in according arrangement within the paper. The survey was added with an extra open-ended question for the participant to express their point of view. 3.1 Discussion on Perceived Usefulness There are three external variables that is linked to perceived usefulness such as (i) Wikipedia awareness, (ii) peer and collaboration support and lastly (iii) readiness for users’ information literacy. These are also identified as the key motivators by Martins and Kellermanns (2004). Both have conducted as identified awareness of the capabilities of a system (such as WebCT) in their paper is one of the key motivators that contribute to the external variable on the perceived usefulness of the system. Therefore here, using the approach, three questions have been asked initially to the participants with a verbal brief introduction of Wikipedia and its functional capabilities. Wikipedia Awareness: The results retrieved from the awareness session are quite interesting as more 31.67% of the participants are aware of the three main awareness factors. One of the reasons contributing to this figure is that (i) 20% of them encountered Wikipedia, due to immediate research work in post secondary education and (ii) and to understand some of the technology or system used. In contrast, there is a higher percentage, which shows that more participants are not aware of the capabilities of Wikipedia at the initial of the session. This may be due to the diversity background of the participants in term of the information literacy exposing to such system. Therefore, in general, the discussion reveals that the relevancy or value of Wikipedia is more targeted to a mature learner and higher level of institute of

Page 8 of 19

learning. In order to bridge the gulf of evaluation for the awareness, the community of learning may be encouraged to add more interactive materials more such as pictorial, graphical and sound into the articles. This also implies to the ease of adding the information (articles) into the system. Peer & Collaboration Support: In the online community’s environment, peer and collaboration support is one of the key factors to be established, especially in Wikipedia. Taylor and Todd (1995) have measured this subjective norm in their research using this factor to better understand in the peer and collaboration support, while Martins and Kellermanns (2004) have used to measure the peer and faculty encouragement in their research. From the survey, about 41% found that freedom of posting in Wikipedia is a favourable service, where no restriction or censorship is strictly practiced. Basically, the nature of Wikipedia has proven that it is a user centric repository system, where user as the overall power to shape the service of the system. On the other hand, about 30% still found themselves in between due to the uncertainty in peer and collaboration support that is available in Wikipedia. These are the feedback given (i) unsure about the credibility and willingness to contribute the articles, (ii) lack of incentive and (iii) also too good to be true in perception. Definitely, one of the factors which have been raised during the discussion, Wikipedia allows the ability to link articles via hyperlink and also allow user to add and re-modify as mentioned before. This action gives the ability to facilitate discussion among the network of community. Readiness for Users’ Information Literacy: One of the last key motivators by Martins and Kellermanns (2004) is readiness for users’ information literacy, where a number of learning theory is involved here. They are behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism. These also may include the mechanism of memory and learning such as short term, long term memory, declarative and procedural memory. Morrison (2003), Gualti (2004) and Kira, D., He, X. and Saade, R. (2005) have used the same approached for predicting learner’s readiness in an online environment. Therefore, from the graph, about a large number of participants found using a tool for information literacy. This is because they are able to locate the information that they are seeking. On the other hand, Wikipedia has considered the precaution towards the perception of value as a tool as the contents keep on changing from time to time due to the nature allowed and practices in the community. Overall, the information literacy from Wikipedia is positive, as these meets their information need efficiently and effectively. 3.2 Discussion on Perceived Ease of Use The other three external variables (the enablers) (Martins & Kellerman, 2004) that is link to perceived ease of use are (i) Wikipedia’s Self Efficacy, (ii) Prior Experience and (iii) Facilitating Condition. Wikipedia’s Self Efficacy: In Self-efficacy, the system is believed that the user has the capabilities to execute the action to retrieve the desire task with much help around. From the survey, only partially agree about 39% of the participants find it hard to understand the content found. Substantial effort is required to comprehend the information found. Indirectly, this is due to the presence of textual based and the lack of

Page 9 of 19

graphics or multimedia material. One of the possible reasons might be due to the language level used in Wikipedia for certain technical articles. Another outcome of the survey, the participants claimed that sometime, reading Wikipedia can be an information overload issue, due to the textual given on the screen. This put the users off at the first impression. Wikipedia delivers the basic interactivity level as it fully utilizes the function of hypertext links from one article to another. 21% of the participant found that they have to make the extra effort to register just to post future information. Therefore, this is not their exact intention. Most of the participants just wish to find information and not to contribute. Prior Experience: In the second enabler, where prior experience plays a major role in this discussion, Wikipedia is a proven tool to add value to the users’ information needs or knowledge. This is because of some articles are presented intensely after a certain period to understand how the system works. On the other hand, Wikipedia is designed based on cognitive task. The user has to explore the contents by clicking each button or hypertext on the system. Facilitating Condition: The last enabler is related to the facilitating condition to the system. A large pool of the participant agreed that it is a good tool for learning and do not required high level of programming knowledge. It is also easy to use and navigate around due to the exploratory buttons. Lastly, majority consider Wikipedia learning contribution an easy process.

4

Conclusion

In conclusion, using the initials of Technology Acceptance Model, many people can participate and collaborate in information sharing. It is fairly easy to find range of topics interest and furthermore, it uses only strategies on fundamental simple internet technology. In terms of learning, it allows user to explore the information by clicking cognitively from one hypertext to another. On the other hand, there is no real time support, response and time lag for error correction when information is presented wrongly. Presentation of the information can be improved if the community works towards it. Overall, the user interaction in Wikipedia changes quickly and improves due to the community participation. And, many institutes today have started to accept Wikipedia as one of the learning tools for students due to the external variables (the motivator and enablers)’s components.

References Abowd, G. and Beale, R. (1991) "Users, systems and interfaces: a unifying framework for interaction", in HCI'91: People and Computers VI (Eds, Diaper, D. and Hammond, N.) Cambridge University Press, pp. 73-87

Page 10 of 19

Bouck, L. (2005), “Wikipedia Review. General Reference Review by CNET”, CNET Review, (Online), Last update: September, 06, 2006, URL: http://reviews.cnet.com/Wikipedia/4505-3642_7-31563879.html?tag=sub. Last Accessed: August 21, 2008 Davis, F. D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology”, MIS Quarterly, vol. 13 no.3, pp. 319-340. Desilets, A., Paquet, S., Vinson, N. G., (2004), “Are Wikis Usable?”, WikiSym 2005, October 16-18, 2004 Gualti, S. (2004), “Constructivism and emerging online learning pedagogy: a discussion for formal to acknowledge and promote the informal.” Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Universities Association for Continuing Education - Regional Futures: Formal and Informal Learning Perspectives, Centre for Lifelong Learning, University of Glamorgan, 5-7 April 2004 Hu, P. J, Clark, T. H. K. & Ma, W. W. (2003), “Examining technology acceptance by school teachers: a longitudinal study”, Information & Management, Vol 41(2002), pp. 227-241. Kira, D. and Saade, R. “Affective Learning: Mediating Experience and Perceived Ease Of Use”, Proceedings of the 2006 College Teaching & Learning Conference in Orlando, Florida on January 2-6, 2006. Kira, D., He, X. and Saade, R. (2005), “Exploring Dimensions to Online Learning”, Computers in Human Behaviour, vol. 23 (2007), pp. 1721-1739 Lew, Y.W.E. (2005). “Using the technology acceptance model to investigate students’ acceptance of weblogs for learning in higher education.” Masters Dissertation. Nanyang Technological University: Singapore. Lopez D. A. & Manson, D. P. (1997), “A study of individual computer self-efficacy and perceived usefulness of the empowered desktop information system.” (Online), URL: www.csupomona.edu/~jis/1997/Lopez.pdf, Last Access: February 26, 2007 Martin, L. L. & Kellermanns, (2004), “A Model of Business Schoool Students’ Acceptance of a Web-Based Course Management System”, Academy of Management Learning and Educaton, 2004, Vol. 3, No. 1., pp7-26. Majchrzak, A., Wagner, C. and Yates, D. (2006), “Corporate Wiki Users: Results of a Survey”, WikiSym 2006, August 21-23, 2006 M. Krötzsch, D. Vrandečić, and M. Völkel.(200), “Wikipedia and the Semantic Web -- the missing links”. In Proc. of the 1st Int. Wikimedia Conf., Wikimania, Aug 2005. Morrison, D. (2003), “Using Activity Theory to design Constructive Online Learning Environment for Higher Order Thinking: A retrospective Analysis”, Canadian Journal of Learning & Technology, Vol. 29, No. 3.

Page 11 of 19

Muniz, Albert M. Jr. and Thomas C. O’Guinn (2001), “Brand Community,” Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 27 (March), 412-432. Nielson/NetRatings, Inc (2005), “Educarional Reference Website Spike 22 Percent in Year Over Year Growth, Led By Wikipedia and Yahoo! Education, According to Nielson/Netrating, (Online), Published on October 13, 2005, URL: http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:ZKwcjCejoOwJ:www.netratings.com/pr/pr_051 013.pdf+Nielsen/NetRatings+on+wikipedia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=sg, Last Accessed: August 21, 2008 Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books. Rizzo, A. Marchigiani, E. Andreadis, A. (1997), “The AVANTI Project: Prototyping and evaluation with a Cognitive Walkthrough based on the Norman’s Model of action”, ACM Conference on Designing Interactive System’97

Sjoberg, L. (2006). “The Wikipedia FAQK”, Wired News, (Online), Published: April 19, 2006. URL: http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,70670-0.html. Last Accessed: August 21, 2008 Stafford, T. and Webb, M. (2006), “What is a Wiki (and How to Use One for your Projects)”, O’Reillly Network, (Online), Published: July, 07, 2006, URL: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2006/07/07/what-is-a-wiki.html. Last Accessed: August 21, 2008 Szmigin, I. and A. E. Reppel (2004), "Internet Community Bonding: The case of macnews.de", European Journal of Marketing, vol. 38, no. 5/6, pp. 626-640 Taylor, S., Todd, P. A. “Understanding Information Technolgy Usage: a test of competing models.”, Information Systems Research, Vol 6, no2, pp144-176 Teo, H.-H., Chan, H.-C., Wei, K.-K., & Zhang, Z. (2003), “Evaluating information accessibility and community adaptivity features for sustaining virtual learning communities”. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, vol. 59, no.5, pp671697. Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & K., P. (2001). “Path: Exploiting Technological Trajectories”. Managing Innovation (2nd Edition ed.): John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., pp.111-134 Theng, Y.L., (2007) “ Singapore.

“, Lecture Notes Week, Nanyang Technological University:

Theng, Y.L., (2007) “ Singapore.

“, Lecture Notes Week, Nanyang Technological University:

Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (200). "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Management Science, (46:2), pp. 186-204. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B.; Davis, F D. (2003), “User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view”, MIS Quarterly, 2003, vol. 27, no. 3, 425-478.

Page 12 of 19

Venkatesh, V., (200) "Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model," Information Systems Research, Vol. 11, no4, pp. 342-365. Wikipedia (2007), “History of Wikipedia”, Wikipedia, (Online), URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia, Last Update January 2007, Last Accessed: August 21, 2008

Appendix: Working Data

Appendix A The customer (end user) triangle framework by Szmigin, I. and A. E. Reppel (2004) Potential for deliver contents

Accessibility (ease of use)

Service value

Responsibilities for interaction

User bonding Technical infrastructure Interactivity

Speed & Reliability

Foster for interaction

Page 13 of 19

Appendix B Normal Model of Interaction With the Survey Question of Perceived of Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use Flow through the model framework. Issue Distance Semantic Distance

Q1. Q2.

Q2. , Q1

Goal Q3. , Q10

Intention

Evaluation

Q8. , Q9

Q8. , Q9

Action

Interpretation

Q4, Q5, Q7

Referential Distance

Q6, Q3

Execution

Perception Interface

Appendix C Interaction Framework

User Action Q3, Q4, Q8

System Response

Input

Q1, Q7, Q10

Q5, Q4, Q6 User

System

Q2, Q5, Q7 Q9 User Evaluation

Output

System Display

Appendix D Technology Acceptance Model

Page 14 of 19

Appendix E Technology Acceptance Model (External Variable & Perceived Usefulness & Perceived Ease of Use)

Appendix F Wikipedia Awareness Totally Agree

Partially Agree

Neither Agree or Disagree

Partially Disagree

Totally Disagree

Do you think Wikipedia is useful when the moment I finish the introduction

Have you refer to Wikipedia before this introduction

Have you come across Wikipedia before this introduction

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Page 15 of 19

Appendix G Peer & Collaboration Support Totally Agree

Partially Agree

Neither Agree or Disagree

Partially Disagree

Totally Disagree

Using Wikipedia due to the freedom of contribution Using Wikipedia due to the freedom of accessibility (no payment requirements) Using Wikipedia due to the quick response for the contribution / enquires Using Wikipedia as a good place of collaboration

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Appendix H Readiness for users’ information literacy Totally Agree

Partially Agree

Neither Agree or Disagree

Partially Disagree

Totally Disagree

Using Wikipedia as a form of leisure reading and browsing Using Wikipedia would enhance the effectiveness as a learner Using Wikipedia would cater all the information needs Using Wikipedia would increase your general knowledge or studies Using Wikipedia is useful to your work (school, general knowledge, interest) 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Page 16 of 19

Appendix I Wikipedia’s Self-Efficacy Totally Agree

Partially Agree

Neither Agree or Disagree

Partially Disagree

Totally Disagree

Collaboration on Wikipedia is an easy way to establish, continue and manage

Does Wikipedia has high interactivity level (and easy to insert media)

How users felt to understand and clarity the contents of Wikipedia

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

Appendix J

Prior Experience Totally Agree

Partially Agree

Neither Agree or Disagree

Partially Disagree

Totally Disagree

How users felt about technical accessibility to Wikipedia (system requirement) Will you recommend Wikipedia to your friends Will you use Wikipedia as your prefer choice of reference information Overall, Wikipedia would be an easy to use tool Is it easy to link and create links from one article to another Using Wikipedia does not require a lot of mental effort 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Page 17 of 19

Appendix K Facilitating Condition Totally Agree

Partially Agree

Neither Agree or Disagree

Partially Disagree

Totally Disagree

Using Wikipedia as a form of leisure reading and brow sing

Using Wikipedia w ould enhance the effectiveness as a learner

Using Wikipedia w ould cater all the information needs

Using Wikipedia w ould increase your general know ledge or studies

Using Wikipedia is useful to your w ork (school, general know ledge, interest)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

Appendix L Perceive Usefulness Totally Agree

Partially Agree

Neither Agree or Disagree

Partially Disagree

Totally Disagree

Readiness for users’ information literacy

Peer & Colloboration Support

Wikipedia Awareness

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Page 18 of 19

Appendix M Perceived Ease of Use Totally Agree

Partially Agree

Neither Agree or Disagree

Partially Disagree

Totally Disagree

Facilitating Conditions

Prior Exprience

Wikipedia Self-Efficacy

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

Page 19 of 19