The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#41

Post by Shivetya » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 7:57 PM UTC

runn1ng wrote: post #18

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…

trouble is on some articles where the science is still up fo debate or sensitive you run up against the older editors whose word is law. Got to love a source being rejected as not credible when the same reference existed elsewhere.

It is a great site for facts or information where there is no ability to debate or need too, like top 40 songs, videos, and anime.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#42

Post by runn1ng » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 7:58 PM UTC

Balgair wrote: post #37

runn1ng wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I do not think you are at all lying. However, why in the name of all that is holy would I ever do that? Literally, cleaning my toenails is a better use of my time than that. Doing my neighbor's taxes is a better use of my time. Getting high and watching the news is better use of time. It just seems so utterly hopeless and pointless to even try from what you say. Why do you do this?!

Because you want the truth on Wikipedia, basically. When I want something to be written there, I am willing to push it through, dig up all the necessary references on Google Scholar (ultimately, references to papers are the best munition you can have) and argue about it.

But it isn't for someone who just wants to write a bit of his knowledge and let it go.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#43

Post by bhouston » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 7:58 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #32

So the peak was in 2007. I think I know why. In 2006-2007, there was an organized push on Wikipedia by pro-Israel editors to make Israel-related articles favorable to Israel. This provoked some major controversies, especially because at least one of the pro-Israel editors was a Wikipedia admin and abused their authority. (Eventually, they were "desysopped" for that, but it took years.) For a sense of this, see [1], i…

More details on that Israel controversy here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict-of-interest_editing_o...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Midd...

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#44

Post by sandworm101 » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 7:59 PM UTC

There is a finite pattern whenever one relies on volunteers. Most will come and go, but a few hang around and rise to the top. Lacking renumeration, they tend towards self-gratification. Some handle extra responsibility well, but others start building their own little castles from which to berate all below. This process is inevitable once you have multiple ranks of volunteers.

I've seen this with charities, open source projects, and it was a constant problem when I worked in film/tv (interns). Things always go south when you have volunteers bossing around other volunteers. Newcomers show up eager but depart quickly, normally after some dressing down by a more senior volunteer. Without pay in dispute, they rarely make complaint. They just stop showing up. And who can blame them?

The answer is to keep all volunteers equal. That's probably impossible for a project like wikipedia, but they could certainly do more to ensure new volunteers are not so bullied by the old guard.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#45

Post by dajohnson89 » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 7:59 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #31

lawpoop wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I contributed to several Wikipedia articles over the years (~50-100). It's gotten to the point where it's pointless to improve even terrible articles like stubs as basically everything is automatically reversed. At best a mod may decide to add your content back, which means at this point it's basically stopped being a public wiki. Which is fine, IMO they should just change the name to Webpedia or something if they do…

Just curious, why are your edits auto-reversed? That's very discouraging to hear.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#46

Post by lovelearning » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 7:59 PM UTC

Somehow OpenStreetMaps has managed to remain democratic, welcoming to newcomers and yet remarkably accurate without much (any?) moderation, despite being almost as old as Wikipedia. I've always wondered how it manages that.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#47

Post by c3534l » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:00 PM UTC

_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…

> 80% of the effort of creating new content is following byzantine processes and procedures

You literally just press edit, make your changes, and then press save. There is zero bureaucracy in adding content. The bureaucracy comes into play with there is unresolved conflict and disagreement, when there is a controversy over how an article is written. In that case, there are definite, objective(ish) standards and rules by which those arguments can come to a resolution of some kind. I suppose in a more hierarchical structure there would be less bureaucracy when there are disagreements and the next person in charge would simply decide which view he thought was more correct. But the traditional structure of writing an encyclopedia is filled with gatekeepers who have the final, single decision without much of a need to reach consensus. Depending on your view this could be good or it could be bad.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#48

Post by sparkzilla » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:00 PM UTC

return0 wrote: post #33

I think that's the best you can do with crowdsourcing. To go beyond you would need a structured community. My bet is, however, on an AI that will build the articles automatically.

You can do a lot more with crowdsourced models. Crowdsourcing content != wiki. My site (see bio) is a more structured way to build news and biography content that IMHO gives better presentation and less editor stress than the equivalent Wikipedia pages.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#49

Post by Paul_S » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:05 PM UTC

I used to contribute a lot when I was younger and had more free time but I might have kept that up if not for the change that happened in the late 00s when the higher ups decided that wikipedia has too much content and started streamlining by simply deleting whole sections. I am not talking about when citations became a stricter requirement and the quality in general became more of a focus - that came later. I think it's more sane nowadays but I'm too disillusioned now. I hate its approach of "if it's not intelligible to or of interest to a layman then it needs to be streamlined".

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#50

Post by LoSboccacc » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:07 PM UTC

placeybordeaux wrote: post #12

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.

I'd go for a second place after the google index itself