The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

Post by Animats » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 9:36 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.

Post by cooper12 » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 9:41 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…

Post by DanBC » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 9:46 PM UTC

return0 wrote: post #78

digler999 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Post by j_lev » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 9:57 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…

Post by gozur88 » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 10:23 PM UTC

glesica wrote: post #76

gozur88 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.