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

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#71

Post by return0 » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:33 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…

It would be premature to get to that stage, given the vast gap in quality (even in the english wikipedia, articles in many domains have glaring errors / omissions and nonsense in them). First you build the world, and only when it's become a zero sum game you fight over it.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#72

Post by jzd » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:33 PM UTC

digler999 wrote: post #57

Marcomasino wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know exactly what _pmf_ means. I used deal with a self declared Asperger who was top class in his field. The thing is whenever I asked him do you know how to fix this problem. The answer was invariably, 'sorry I don't know how to do that'. Of course I should have phrased it as, I am having difficulties in solving this problem and was wondering if you would advise me on finding a solution.

Wow, one anecdotal piece of evidence. Your postulate must now be proven. Tell me some of your anecdotes about black people or mexicans while you're at it. Remember, by your logic, any single sample speaks for the whole population. This should be interesting! :)

^ this guy is why we can't have nice things

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#73

Post by ddingus » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:34 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…

It would be a big help to see those tired people work in a positive way. Someone with clear domain knowledge gets met with hostility, and can clearly see there is no time to on board them, or take a swing at improving the contribution.

The default is, "go away, we have better things to do mere mortal" and while that may not be the intent, that is the impression a new contributor is often left with.

Then comes the funding page... really? Now, maintaining what is there is worth finding, but the negatives do impact the perception of this.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#74

Post by brillenfux » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:34 PM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #44

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 sour…

This should get more attention. I'm almost certain you have the source of the problem right. I just wouldn't be so sure and quick about your solution.

It would be really nice to have more extensive work on how to mitigate these kinds of dynamics as I'm certain we will see more and more of these projects and I'd like them to be healthy for a change.

Humanity: Evolve! ;-)

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#75

Post by rspeer » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:35 PM UTC

js8 wrote: post #36

I think the reason for decline (and bureaucracy) is actually a lack of democracy. For example, there is no way to recall administrators. Also, opinion of majority is sometimes dismissed as not being good consensus, which only helps people in established cliques. Democracy is a rule that ensures fairness, but senior administrators do not always want it. Secondary problem is IMHO the caste nature of administrator privi…

I'm not so concerned about recalling administrators. Administrators who do blatantly bad things sometimes end up losing their position, and sometimes just end up with enough people angry at them that they leave.

What I'm concerned about is that there's no way to get new administrators, which is what it would take to bring in new ideas that break up the unnecessary bureaucracy.

The process that used to create them got entirely paralyzed, both by ridiculous inflation of metrics (I saw the edit count requirements -- they call them suggestions but they're requirements -- increase by a factor of 20 while I participated), and by the requirement to convince a supermajority of long-standing editors to vote for you.

I became an administrator in '06, and by '08 I would never have been considered. Basically, you have to edit every part of the encyclopedia while upsetting nobody, then inflate your already prolific accomplishments to get your foot in the door, without looking like a liar. This is impossible.

Old administrators (like me) lose interest. New ones don't take their place. The work is being increasingly done by the most obsessive people, and by faceless bots.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#76

Post by glesica » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:35 PM UTC

gozur88 wrote: post #66

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…

This is something Jerry Pournelle used to complain about. He edited some pages relating to the US space program. Events in which he took part or knew the people involved. Then he'd come back a month later and find the page had been edited again with the incorrect information re-inserted. Eventually he just gave up. And then there are political problems. The Tyson affair is a good example - Neil deGrasse Tyson spent m…

> Wikipedia is good for historical references (pre 1900 or so), and a good place to start if you just don't know anything about the thing you're looking up.

Whenever I see people say stuff like this I mentally replace what they said with "Wikipedia is a general-knowledge encyclopedia." Not a dig at you, but this should have always gone without saying.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#77

Post by kevindeasis » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:36 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #70

kevindeasis wrote: post #67

It would be cool to have a Wikipedia spinoff but articles have to be explained like I'm five. You might get a lot of contributors from that. It's important because some articles have a lot of jargon and feels like it was written by a bureaucrat. SOME people are only willing to invest a few minutes of their time.

That's the Simple English Wikipedia.[1] [1] https://simple.wikipedia.org

Good to know, that is pretty cool. I wish they had more stuff.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#78

Post by return0 » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:37 PM UTC

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 ?

Given the nature of the work they have to do, it's pretty much a required qualification to have OCD.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#79

Post by x1798DE » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:40 PM UTC

mortenjorck wrote: post #59

c3534l wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You literally just press edit, make your changes, and then press save. You literally just press edit, make your changes, press save, and then wait a few minutes to an hour for your edit to be reverted. Seriously, though, it's disingenuous to suggest that editing is so simple - to be pedantic, yes, the edit itself is free of bureaucracy, but in the majority of cases I've observed, the real effort is in making an edit…

Almost none of my edits ever get reverted, including even fairly major changes, other than in contentious articles or when it comes down to an editorial decision.

Generally I'm either making minor fixes (basically nothing you would dispute), or when I add something, it's cited.

When there is a conflict, it's probably beyond most people to figure out how to handle the conflict resolution process (which generally, in my experience, is fruitful), but if you're adding high quality content, that rarely comes up - it's just that when it does it takes up a disproportionate amount of your time.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#80

Post by JimmyM » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:41 PM UTC

dajohnson89 wrote: post #45

Retric wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just to say that this is not my experience. Have made highly contentious edits and created entirely new articles on topics from Hoplomachus through Corpse Paint to planning law in the UK. None of my good edits have been reverted, but some of my poor edits have been manually reverted after review by a human editor.