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

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#91

Post by Paperweight » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 9:01 PM UTC

tokenadult wrote: post #85

As mentioned in the other recent thread about Wikikpedia, I am a Wikipedian. I joined active editing in 2010, that is after the heyday of welcoming new editors, but long before most articles on important topics were anywhere near to being well sourced. I have tried to clean up the mess on some articles, and am a winner or co-winner of two Million Awards[1] for fixing up high-page-view articles. But how I got the awar…

I think the next generation of online encyclopedia will let a writer "own" a complete version of the article, and the readership/editors will vote on the best written article.

Kind of like Urban Dictionary, except serious.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#92

Post by Alupis » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 9:05 PM UTC

placeybordeaux wrote: post #6

mangeletti wrote: post #5

Wikipedia has problems, but I think it's worth noting that Wikipedia has enough content to fill 2,200x volumes of Encyclopedia Britannica[1], or, a small library. I don't think it's necessarily an existential problem that the public image of Wikipedia's relevance is reaching a sort of "trough of disillusionment" due to some of its governance issues. It has simply reached a scale where it faces a new set or hurdles to…

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.

> 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.

Well, in fairness, the declining number of active editors is likely linked to the public perception of Wikipedia.

Teachers and professors hound into students Wikipedia is not for academic use and is full of nonsense and other wrong information.

Most of the time, this is not true.

We would be better off teaching students Wikipedia isn't an appropriate source to cite, but rather a great research tool which links to it's proper sources, which you may cite.

The stigma the education system has built up around Wikipedia is surely effecting the number of people contributing to it.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#93

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 9:15 PM UTC

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.

[deleted]

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#94

Post by cooper12 » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 9:19 PM UTC

Paperweight wrote: post #91

tokenadult wrote: post #85

As mentioned in the other recent thread about Wikikpedia, I am a Wikipedian. I joined active editing in 2010, that is after the heyday of welcoming new editors, but long before most articles on important topics were anywhere near to being well sourced. I have tried to clean up the mess on some articles, and am a winner or co-winner of two Million Awards[1] for fixing up high-page-view articles. But how I got the awar…

I think the next generation of online encyclopedia will let a writer "own" a complete version of the article, and the readership/editors will vote on the best written article. Kind of like Urban Dictionary, except serious.

Ownership of articles is exactly what †hey was complaining about though. And content forks are a logistical nightmare; how do you track, diff, and merge all those different changes when needed? You'd think with stuff like git it's already a solved problem choosing what to show and how to present it brings in its own issues like biased judges, forks for different points of views, everyone editing their preferred version, etc. It completely circumvents the point of collaborative editing and discussion on one version of an article. There's no such thing as one source of truth, but I'd rather have something close to that than many sources.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#95

Post by briandh » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 9:20 PM UTC

viewer5 wrote: post #64

spb wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenStreetMaps' content is virtually 100% objective (with only political borders and names being potentially contentious).

What's there to argue about over names? Pardon my ignorance, I'm very poorly-travelled.

For instance, do you refer to a particular group of uninhabited islands as "Senkaku Islands, Japan", "Diaoyu Islands, People's Republic of China", or "Diaoyutai Islands, Republic of China"? Some people are very passionate about the answer.

Is the political entity on Formosa "Taiwan", "Taiwan Province, Republic of China", "Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China", or "Taiwan, Province of China"?

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#96

Post by ignostic » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 9:23 PM UTC

Wikipedia feels like a piece of software that's experienced massive scope creep. It's huge. People have pet pieces they're emotionally attached to. It's so massive and trying to do so much that it's hard to even tell how best to improve it or where to start. For every "bug" (bad piece of info) that's fixed, we push 50 new bugs (and tons of new and correct info, of course).

I've stopped editing because it just feels like a drop in the pond every time I do. When I fix obvious bias it just reappears by the editors with ulterior motives. And I just don't have the energy to fight them on it. I've stopped reading as much because I've learned that for any topic there are much better and more thorough sources. Economics and medicine in particular have very little... quality control on Wikipedia.

With that said it's still a fantastic source for an overview of a topic that I know nothing about, especially for non-controversial topics.

Wikipedia will live on as a good starting place for deep research and a quick explanation for quick questions. There just aren't enough editors to make it into the "sum of human knowledge" some people want it to be.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#97

Post by Marcomasino » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 9:25 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! :)

Having worked with and directed people of differing ethnic backgrounds, I would pick the Chinese as best to work with. The worst who shall remain nameless, were either augmentative dishonest or lazy and some were as thick as two very thick planks glued together. You had to speak to them in very short sentences and not use big words and still they didn't get it. I didn't experience a large enough sample to form an opinion as to whether it was environmental or genetic.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#98

Post by frenchy » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 9:27 PM UTC

spb wrote: post #53

lovelearning wrote: post #46

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.

OpenStreetMaps' content is virtually 100% objective (with only political borders and names being potentially contentious).

It's not 100% objective, but for simple things, it mostly is. If you hop on the mailing lists you will find all sorts of people bickering about whether it should be `shop=ice_cream` or `amenity=ice_cream` or `restauraunt=ice_cream` as they fight over their self-made taxonomies.

At some point, I think, things will inevitably change. But for the moment, there's so many obvious things to work on that the confusing/subjective things don't really pop up too much.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#99

Post by massysett » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 9:34 PM UTC

smithkl42 wrote: post #86

I'll toss my own experience out there. I've contributed edits to maybe a dozen or so different Wikipedia articles, and would like to contribute more, but it's hard to get past a couple of hurdles. The main one is the byzantine and archaic editing tools. The markdown language that Wikipedia uses is a PITA to learn, and following a discussion on the talk page is almost impossible. Wikipedia presents a wonderful UX for…

This is the worst thing about Wikipedia. Experts with actual knowledge are discouraged and ridiculed while those who have built up longevity through tenacity retain control even if they know nothing.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#100

Post by sandworm101 » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 9:35 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #88

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…

That's different enough from VestedContributor that you should give it a name and write it up. http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/VestedContributor VestedContributors think the rules can be bent for them because they've been around so long and done so much good work.

Write up what? Sandworm's syndrome of the progressive dysfunction inherent to hierarchical volunteer communities? Talk to anyone who has worked as a volunteer coordinator. They see this all the time.

As for keeping volunteers equal to avoid the problem, that need not mean keeping everyone identical. Leadership roles can rotate, with finite term limits. That way every leader today knows they will be the underling tomorrow. (This also keeps everyone interested and motivated as nobody is every stuck on one task/job).