I find it hard to believe that Wikipedia is "in decline" when the article I wrote about the niche area of CS I worked in during undergrad has a life of its own now. People continue to add to it and now it has a fair deal of content and information that I was unaware of. If that's what decline looks like, I'm fine with it.
The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]
21–30 of 156 posts
Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]
#22I 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 ?
> Is it really necessary to use mental illnesses in a pejorative way to make your point ?
He's not. That is, actually, the real problem. He's not just using it as some sort of insult but explaining the specific problem.
I've run into editors like that (they even proudly boast about it on their user page, so I'm not just projecting). I've had enough run-ins with them, and people like them, that I gave up on editing.
Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]
#23[deleted]
Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]
#24Earlier 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 ?
It should make them aware that they should refrain from holding any position where they have to deal with people. I am sure you have never edited Wikipedia; the amount of users and admins that more than obviously suffer from autism spectrum disorders and OCDs is very, very high, and they are crippling the bureaucratic processes of the wiki. I know these words are "ugly" or "not politically correct" but I think just l…
Maybe you should refrain from trying to diagnose mental disorders by pretending to analyze Wikipedia editor culture.
That's not even a disorder, it's just plain stupid.
Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]
#25I 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…
You are correct, and you know what happens? The people LEAST qualified to contribute contribute the most. Why? Because they have too much time on their hands, and can battle endlessly.
People with real knowledge usually have better things to do.
Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]
#26Wikipedia 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.
What sort of shape would you expect from the number of active editors?
I'd imagine an S-curve for editors. A few, early adopters in the beginning, then a surge of editors filling in the bulk of articles, then after the majority of articles have been written, a slow decline of need for editors.
I'd imagine the remaining work to be completed would be editorial defense of existing articles and the new amount of articles generated by current events/technology/politics.
Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]
#27Wikipedia used to be a large part of my web experience. Now I might end up on Wikipedia 2 or 3 times a week. That said, DBPedia (RDF data derived from Wikipedia) is useful and I rely on it.
Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm suggesting that there hasn't been as much of a decline in community as there has been a decline in the available encyclopedia-relevant information left in the world that isn't already published on Wikipedia. Also, the public perception is related to the drop of users and vice versa. There has been a lot of negative press lately, specifically related to problems in the community.
The decline in number of editors seems to have started at 2007 given figure 1. I wouldn't tie the amount of negative press to the decline in editors. The point about there being less new stuff to write about seems apt, what do you think about the counter points that the article had? "First, as noted above, the vast majority of articles in Wikipedia are still below community standards for “good” articles. Second, unde…
[deleted]
Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]
#29Isn't this more describing a typical s-curve with regard to the information being mostly filled out? Wikipedia isn't a news site.
Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]
#30I 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…
right, and the problem is the people who are willing to engage in such a battle are a self-selecting group of people. the final product we see on the site, ends up being largely contributed by that group of willing fighters, and less those that have the most domain expertise.