The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

Post by tamana » Fri, Jan 01, 2016, 7:15 PM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #100

DanBC wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tomo…

Post by LoSboccacc » Fri, Jan 01, 2016, 8:29 PM UTC

TheGrassyKnoll wrote: post #110

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…

> interesting novelty, to a incredible community, to a petty > bureaucracy. One line summary of the history of the United States ?

Post by contingencies » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 1:44 AM UTC

Paul_S wrote: post #49

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…