Wikipedia attracted contributors because it was built around a familiar product — the encyclopedia.

Prior to Wikipedia, online encyclopedias tried to do what we tend to think is a good thing when it comes to the web: challenging old metaphors, exploding analog traditions, inventing entirely new forms.

Newness isn’t always inviting; Wikipedia succeeded in part because, revolutionary as it was, it also felt familiar.

a crucial aspect of mobilization is also the most basic: simply getting people on the same page.

Wikipedia focused on substantive content development instead of technology.

Using the simple technology of the wiki allowed Wikipedia’s founders to focus on the encyclopedia’s content — on getting article contributions rather than building technology.

Wikipedia offered low transaction costs to participation, and it de-emphasized the social ownership of content.

the fact that it’s difficult to tell who wrote an article, or who edited it — rather than discouraging contribution, as you might assume — actually encouraged contributions

Low textual ownership resulted in more collaboration

Wikipedia’s authorless structure lowers the pressure some might feel to contribute something stellar.

If you want user contributions, build platforms that are familiar and easy. Lower the barriers to participation; focus on helping users to understand what you want from them rather than on dazzling them.

the inverse of game dynamics can be a powerful force, as well.