Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

www-users.cs.umn.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 156 posts

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#11

Post by digler999 »

_pmf_ wrote: post #10

I think Wikipedia will become the best case study in how bureaucracy cripples a working society. 80% of the effort of creating new content is following byzantine processes and procedures. While I admit that these processes work for consistency of content, I cannot in the least observe any noticeable quality improvements, and the reason is that valuable contributors with deep domain knowledge will not invest the time…

> OCD of some arbitrary editor suffering from Asperger.

Is it really necessary to use mental illnesses in a pejorative way to make your point ? How do you think it makes people feel who legitimately suffer from those illnesses ?

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#12

Post by placeybordeaux »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #3

Eh, it went from a interesting novelty, to a incredible community, to a petty bureaucracy. My personal experience is that under the crowdsourcing model the well meaning non experts outnumber the real experts and it's hard to police them while treating all as equals. In short, democracy brought content toward mediocrity. Now it's dangerous to use it but for a cursory introduction to any in depth content, while non fac…

I would say it's still the best singular repository of human knowledge. There is nothing to say that it won't deal with the bureaucratic issues.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#13

Post by rloc »

I tried once or twice to edit articles but was quickly rejected by editors that usually believe they sort of "own" the content. I've quickly become demotivated as explained in the analysis and never contributed again. Another problem is that when you think you've made an important and useful update you're never sure when someone will roll it back.

Some are spending a very big chunk of their time to make sure articles stay as they wish to. Being a former or an active editor on an article is not always related to how much you know about the topic but Wikipedia favorites the biggest editors. There is very little chance to convince if you're new unless you commit to spend a lot of your valuable time contributing which is not possible for everyone and not a good idea for most.

A very hard problem to solve.

Wikipedia is still great though with no real better alternative.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#14

Post by placeybordeaux »

mangeletti wrote: post #7
placeybordeaux wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this related to the article? You seem to be talking about public perception of wikipedia while the article mainly focuses on the falling number of active editors.

I'm suggesting that there hasn't been as much of a decline in community as there has been a decline in the available encyclopedia-relevant information left in the world that isn't already published on Wikipedia. Also, the public perception is related to the drop of users and vice versa. There has been a lot of negative press lately, specifically related to problems in the community.

The decline in number of editors seems to have started at 2007 given figure 1. I wouldn't tie the amount of negative press to the decline in editors.

The point about there being less new stuff to write about seems apt, what do you think about the counter points that the article had?

"First, as noted above, the vast majority of articles in Wikipedia are still below community standards for “good” articles. Second, underrepresented groups still find it challenging to join. For instance, one study found that only 9% of edits are made by female editors, and that articles of particular interest to women are shorter than articles of interest to men (Lam, 2011). Until editors are representative of the population of potential contributors, it is difficult to argue that the socialization practices are sufficiently effective."

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#16

Post by mahouse »

digler999 wrote: post #11
_pmf_ wrote: post #10

I think Wikipedia will become the best case study in how bureaucracy cripples a working society. 80% of the effort of creating new content is following byzantine processes and procedures. While I admit that these processes work for consistency of content, I cannot in the least observe any noticeable quality improvements, and the reason is that valuable contributors with deep domain knowledge will not invest the time…

> OCD of some arbitrary editor suffering from Asperger. Is it really necessary to use mental illnesses in a pejorative way to make your point ? How do you think it makes people feel who legitimately suffer from those illnesses ?

It should make them aware that they should refrain from holding any position where they have to deal with people. I am sure you have never edited Wikipedia; the amount of users and admins that more than obviously suffer from autism spectrum disorders and OCDs is very, very high, and they are crippling the bureaucratic processes of the wiki.

I know these words are "ugly" or "not politically correct" but I think just looking the other way is not helping anybody.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#17

Post by shmerl »

Wikipedia is a hit and miss. After contributing, some things stick, but others can be removed without good reason, and wasting one's time on bureaucratic fights to restore that content is simply very tiring and after some point it becomes annoying enough, so I stopped trying to restore such things most of the time.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#18

Post by runn1ng »

rloc wrote: post #13

I tried once or twice to edit articles but was quickly rejected by editors that usually believe they sort of "own" the content. I've quickly become demotivated as explained in the analysis and never contributed again. Another problem is that when you think you've made an important and useful update you're never sure when someone will roll it back. Some are spending a very big chunk of their time to make sure articles…

I have learned that in order to actually contribute to Wikipedia, you have to treat it less like a collaboration and more like a battle.

You can't just contribute and consider it done. You have to be prepare to fight your way through, engage in edit wars, learn about the battlefield (the bureaucracy, the article sourcing) and in the end, if you fight long enough, you usually win.

You have to repeatedly, over and over, show that the other person (who 'owns' the article) is wrong, he will revert it, so you do a little dance of reverting and back, then you have to try to dig up some rule from the ruleset, and as I said, you will usually win because the other person gives up. Or he doesn't, but then some higher editor stumps him.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#19

Post by viggity »

should be titled "The rise and decline in Wikipedia editor counts".

Wikipedia may have its political issues, but to say it is "in decline" seems off. There is only so much that can be written and only so many new things can happen to document. Obviously no hard limit exists, but still.

If it was to be in general decline as the title conotates, I'd expect to see overall traffic lower over time and while I searched in earnest for 10 minutes, I couldn't find that data (alexa is pay service now, wtf?). But have a hard time seeing actual traffic declining.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#20

Post by lawpoop »

placeybordeaux wrote: post #14
mangeletti wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm suggesting that there hasn't been as much of a decline in community as there has been a decline in the available encyclopedia-relevant information left in the world that isn't already published on Wikipedia. Also, the public perception is related to the drop of users and vice versa. There has been a lot of negative press lately, specifically related to problems in the community.

The decline in number of editors seems to have started at 2007 given figure 1. I wouldn't tie the amount of negative press to the decline in editors. The point about there being less new stuff to write about seems apt, what do you think about the counter points that the article had? "First, as noted above, the vast majority of articles in Wikipedia are still below community standards for “good” articles. Second, unde…

Not OP, but

1. Isn't this a moving target? In the beginning, all you had to do was throw up text; standards evolved (and probably continue to, I don't follow it), and now you have to cite references, adhere to standards, etc. As more articles are reviewed, more probably "become" substandard.

2. Is this really a decline issue? I guess it is if you are considering decline not as failure to maintain but failure to grow.

Post reply on HN