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

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#51

Post by digler999 » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:09 PM UTC

ars wrote: post #22

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 ?

> 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.

> That is, actually, the real problem.

So all wikipedia editors have Asperger's and OCD ? That seems astronomically unlikely, don't you ?

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#52

Post by ddingus » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:10 PM UTC

placeybordeaux wrote: post #14

mangeletti wrote: post #7

Earlier 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…

I wanted to join and contribute to some niches I have considerable value to add.

Was onerous enough that I quickly found other things to do with my time.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#53

Post by spb » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:10 PM UTC

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).

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#54

Post by Spooky23 » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:11 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #31

lawpoop wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP, but 1. Isn't this a moving target? In the beginning, all you had to do was throw up text; standards evolved (and probably continue to, I don't follow it), and now you have to cite references, adhere to standards, etc. As more articles are reviewed, more probably "become" substandard. 2. Is this really a decline issue? I guess it is if you are considering decline not as failure to maintain but failure to grow.

I contributed to several Wikipedia articles over the years (~50-100). It's gotten to the point where it's pointless to improve even terrible articles like stubs as basically everything is automatically reversed. At best a mod may decide to add your content back, which means at this point it's basically stopped being a public wiki. Which is fine, IMO they should just change the name to Webpedia or something if they do…

It's a shame, but any public forum seems to degenerate to this point. Stack exchange is another great example... The bureaucracy that emerges distracts from the original mission.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#55

Post by ddingus » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:12 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #31

lawpoop wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP, but 1. Isn't this a moving target? In the beginning, all you had to do was throw up text; standards evolved (and probably continue to, I don't follow it), and now you have to cite references, adhere to standards, etc. As more articles are reviewed, more probably "become" substandard. 2. Is this really a decline issue? I guess it is if you are considering decline not as failure to maintain but failure to grow.

I contributed to several Wikipedia articles over the years (~50-100). It's gotten to the point where it's pointless to improve even terrible articles like stubs as basically everything is automatically reversed. At best a mod may decide to add your content back, which means at this point it's basically stopped being a public wiki. Which is fine, IMO they should just change the name to Webpedia or something if they do…

My experience too

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#56

Post by digler999 » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:12 PM UTC

mahouse wrote: post #16

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 ?

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…

> I know these words are "ugly" or "not politically correct"

It's not about PC. It's about violating their rights. Please, post your full medical charts, prescription lists, and any mental health counseling notes or treatments for addiction you've ever undertaken, so I can use them to mock you.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#57

Post by digler999 » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:14 PM UTC

Marcomasino wrote: post #38

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 ?

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! :)

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#58

Post by hubridnoxx » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:15 PM UTC

digler999 wrote: post #51

ars wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> That is, actually, the real problem. So all wikipedia editors have Asperger's and OCD ? That seems astronomically unlikely, don't you ?

PC hypersensitivity..

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#59

Post by mortenjorck » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:15 PM UTC

c3534l wrote: post #47

_pmf_ wrote: post #10

I 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…

> 80% of the effort of creating new content is following byzantine processes and procedures You literally just press edit, make your changes, and then press save. There is zero bureaucracy in adding content. The bureaucracy comes into play with there is unresolved conflict and disagreement, when there is a controversy over how an article is written. In that case, there are definite, objective(ish) standards and rules…

  You literally just press edit, make your changes, and then press save.

You literally just press edit, make your changes, press save, and then wait a few minutes to an hour for your edit to be reverted.

Seriously, though, it's disingenuous to suggest that editing is so simple - to be pedantic, yes, the edit itself is free of bureaucracy, but in the majority of cases I've observed, the real effort is in making an edit (not even a controversial one) stick.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#60

Post by ars » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:20 PM UTC

digler999 wrote: post #51

ars wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> That is, actually, the real problem. So all wikipedia editors have Asperger's and OCD ? That seems astronomically unlikely, don't you ?

Is there some requirement that it be all?

It's enough that it's some, to make it impossible to edit anything. In fact it can even be a small minority, but given that they spend (as far as I can tell) almost their entire day on it, a small number can have a huge influence.