The loss of prolific contributors in Wikipedia
semanticscholar.org
The loss of prolific contributors in Wikipedia
1–10 of 44 posts
Re: The loss of prolific contributors in Wikipedia
#2This study sounds like it's part of a strategy to establish corporate control of Wikipedia
Re: The loss of prolific contributors in Wikipedia
#3This study sounds like it's part of a strategy to establish corporate control of Wikipedia
I read the paper and I didn't come to that conclusion. Can you explain why you think that?
Here is their stated purpose:
The primary objective of this work has been to bring forth the issue of the growing depletion of editors, especially the experienced editors in Wikipedia.
One may be able to take their data and then determine if certain editors are near the quitting threshold. The data may also reveal operational and environmental conditions that could be changed to limit the loss of experienced editor.
Re: The loss of prolific contributors in Wikipedia
#4The bigger Wikipedia gets, the less contribution is required, since the “static” content gets more and more covered.
Re: The loss of prolific contributors in Wikipedia
#5Having contributed to the Danish Wikipedia, I was astounded by the arrogance and the accusations by the other contributors/mods.
That was what made me not contribute anymore.
Re: The loss of prolific contributors in Wikipedia
#6The bigger Wikipedia gets, the less contribution is required, since the “static” content gets more and more covered.
that's been my impression as well. when I look at articles focused toward my field I struggle to figure out how I can contribute without needlessly adding complexity or excessive detail to--what amounts to--an encyclopedia entry. Wikipedia isn't done but a lot of the low hanging fruit has been plucked.
Re: The loss of prolific contributors in Wikipedia
#7Having contributed to the Danish Wikipedia, I was astounded by the arrogance and the accusations by the other contributors/mods. That was what made me not contribute anymore.
History is written by the most pompous.
Ignore history. Buy guns.
Re: The loss of prolific contributors in Wikipedia
#8Having contributed to the Danish Wikipedia, I was astounded by the arrogance and the accusations by the other contributors/mods. That was what made me not contribute anymore.
It is nothing short of astounding how small amounts of power corrupt otherwise intelligent people.
Sometimes I despair at the state of democratic politics, but looking at the edit wars of Wikipedia, it could have been worse. So much pettiness for nothing.
Re: The loss of prolific contributors in Wikipedia
#9It was never and can never be sustainable to depend on a small number of super-contributors for a "crowd-sourced" knowledge store.
Maybe the Wikimedia Foundation should focus more on attracting and keeping a broader range and number of contributors instead of curating few it considered "good".
Re: The loss of prolific contributors in Wikipedia
#10The bigger Wikipedia gets, the less contribution is required, since the “static” content gets more and more covered.
that's been my impression as well. when I look at articles focused toward my field I struggle to figure out how I can contribute without needlessly adding complexity or excessive detail to--what amounts to--an encyclopedia entry. Wikipedia isn't done but a lot of the low hanging fruit has been plucked.
Historically underrepresented groups have entered the chat.