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

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#61

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

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…

Perhaps editors should have their status revoked after a random period of time, to keep things fresh?

I suppose the problem with that is ensuring that the system 'promotes' enough normal users to fill the gap; again, random assignment might work. Sort of like an online equivalent of Athenian democracy.

People might be keener to be active editors if they receive an unexpected invitation to participate, but with the understanding that it might only last a week.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#62

Post by ZanyProgrammer » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:22 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…

I feel the same asking questions on Stackoverflow. Its purely read only for me now, since asking questions takes on the sense of masochism.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#63

Post by ddingus » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:24 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…

Yes, an add is easy as you say. However, it will be reverted nearly all of the time, and that is where the trouble is.

Why contribute when the idea of others actually seeing the benefit of doing it is so painful?

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#64

Post by viewer5 » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:24 PM UTC

spb wrote: post #53

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).

What's there to argue about over names? Pardon my ignorance, I'm very poorly-travelled.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#65

Post by Zitrax » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:25 PM UTC

ars wrote: post #25

runn1ng wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is indeed a problem to not have enough time. Just throwing in some facts in an article is often not good enough, it must fit with the flow of the article and not repeat things that has already been said and be in order, and with references etc etc. Some people might not have the time for that additional work to make the contribution "good enough".

I haven't followed Wikipedia for a while but I assume that some rejected changes are due to that people throw in some changes that might be correct but are not worked on enough to fit in with the rest of the article. And one can't in general assume that someone else will do that work for you. Than the easy way out is often a revert instead of leaving a more unfinished article live.

I did most of my contributions to Wikipedia when I had that extra time.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#66

Post by gozur88 » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:25 PM UTC

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…

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 many years spouting made-up quotes supposedly uttered by political opponents (Like this one, for instance - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_jG5kKfacY). Eventually someone compiled all the nonsense and it was something of a mini-scandal. The wiki editors refused to allow any mention of it on his page, so the whole affair is mostly down the memory hole now, just like they intended.

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. But to rely on it for anything that's the slightest bit controversial is daft.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#67

Post by kevindeasis » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:26 PM UTC

It would be cool to have a Wikipedia spinoff but articles have to be explained like I'm five. You might get a lot of contributors from that. It's important because some articles have a lot of jargon and feels like it was written by a bureaucrat. SOME people are only willing to invest a few minutes of their time.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#68

Post by jzd » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:27 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 ?

No

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#69

Post by lovelearning » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:29 PM UTC

spb wrote: post #53

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).

Political contention isn't as big a problem, as spam and inaccuracy. Those are the problems that make such sites generally unwelcoming towards newcomers. Both Wikipedia and Google Maps demonstrate this. OSM doesn't.

Re: The rise and decline of Wikipedia [pdf]

#70

Post by Animats » Thu, Dec 31, 2015, 8:33 PM UTC

kevindeasis wrote: post #67

It would be cool to have a Wikipedia spinoff but articles have to be explained like I'm five. You might get a lot of contributors from that. It's important because some articles have a lot of jargon and feels like it was written by a bureaucrat. SOME people are only willing to invest a few minutes of their time.

That's the Simple English Wikipedia.[1]

[1] https://simple.wikipedia.org