![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Kato |
![]()
Post
#1
|
dhd ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 5,521 Joined: Member No.: 767 ![]() |
Back in December, we briefly touched upon some statistics which showed a decline in the number of new Wikipedia users, and a tailing off of editors with all number of edits -- basically, a decline in the community across the board.
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=21890 It was hard to know how seriously to take these statistics, but the other other day, I listened to a broadcast of Wikipedia Weekly (Andrew Lih's well produced but difficult to stomach pro-Wikipedia radio show). Lih and his on-air "zoo" of cohorts, high on Jimbo-Juice, discuss the findings at some length. Their comments make quite interesting listening. Through the wailing and gnashing of teeth, it is clear that they are concerned by this drop off. One Wiki-pundit asserts that if the community fails, the project dies. Lih himself compares WP to a shark that needs to keep moving, or it will die. Another pro-WP voice bemoans the statistics as "the most depressing thing I've read in all my time at WP" (which, given the hurtful strife and multi-layered defamation WP has unleashed on the world is galling in itself). Interestingly, it is agreed that February-March 2007 was the peak of WP, and it has been downhill ever since. The statistical figures back that up, and this ties in with anecdotal evidence from pretty much all Wiki-watchers. Lih noted that activity on all WP fronts declined from that time, including on mailing lists and so on. At the Review, we can confirm that the community began to eat itself around that time, and a third phase of unending internal conflict had replaced the peak era (which was 2005-2007). Somey here has talked long and hard of the "Maintenance Phase", the inevitable period when new articles are hard to find, and where Wikipedios spend their time chasing their tails in an ever more meaningless tasks. As noted by Greg Kohs and others here, February-March 2007 also coincides with the Essjay scandal. Greg wrote: QUOTE(Greg Kohs) The Essjay incident appeared to have an adverse impact on daily financial donations to the Wikimedia Foundation. The downward slide closely mirrored a number of ethically questionable decisions by key administrators of Wikipedia. In 2007, the wool was removed from the eyes of some of the media, and it seems now that even the most pro-Wikipedia pieces are laced with negatives. And the public at large are much more skeptical of the site than they were 2 years ago. So, we've discussed the demise of WP many times before here, but now, Wiki-evangelists and Cultists like those on Wikipedia Weekly are beginning to take the decline seriously. Is this it? |
![]() ![]() |
anklet with the pom-pom |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Junior Member ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 67 Joined: Member No.: 27,990 ![]() |
Back in December, we briefly touched upon some statistics which showed a decline in the number of new Wikipedia users, and a tailing off of editors with all number of edits -- basically, a decline in the community across the board. ... So, we've discussed the demise of WP many times before here, but now, Wiki-evangelists and Cultists like those on Wikipedia Weekly are beginning to take the decline seriously. Is this it? Having been here long enough to know that posts like yours usually invite a combination of over-analysis as well as sarcasm that usually goes quite off-topic, I'd like to add my take on why Wikipedia is in the decline it is. (1) It's a generally unfriendly place. Newbies are often met with scorn and immediate reverts as well as suspicion. In short, if you've never edited before and happen upon an article that's popular, you will likely be told to go away (even if not that bluntly) by those who watch that article and have taken ownership of it. The encyclopedia anyone can edit has become an encyclopedia no one new can edit. (2) There's no consistency. Admins, rules, standards, etc...none of these things have consistency. And that inconsistency is completely out of control. Hypocrisy in administrative action and behavior is rampant. Long time editors are leaving by the handfuls because of the lack of consistency in how things are run. New editors are quickly discouraged by the lack of consistency. If Wikipedia were a corporation, they would have been out of business long ago. It's chaos run amok and no one at the top seems to care. (3) The cabal definitely exists (even if in little sub-groups) and has turned WP into a social network and a fancier version of Usenet. Social networks and Usenet are okay when they are identified as such, but in an environment such as WP when the stated mission is to "build an encyclopedia", then the social networking will eventually bring it down like a cancer that refuses to stop growing. (4) The admins and places like AN/I and the so-called process of "consensus" are a joke and serve no purpose other than to feed egos and build mini-kingdoms. 'Nuf said about that. (5) Banning and blocking are out of control and only serve to create a bigger problem because editors are getting pissed off at unjust blocks and bans and just return as socks. Socks then create a bigger problem and hassle and time-waster for admins and C/Us. I would be willing to wager that more time is spent by admins and self-appointed wiki-cops on chasing socks than editing the encyclopedia to make it better. What's the point in that? That's all I have for now - anyone here is welcome to build on this synopsis. This post has been edited by anklet with the pom-pom: |
powercorrupts |
![]()
Post
#3
|
. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 716 Joined: Member No.: 6,776 ![]() |
Back in December, we briefly touched upon some statistics which showed a decline in the number of new Wikipedia users, and a tailing off of editors with all number of edits -- basically, a decline in the community across the board. ... So, we've discussed the demise of WP many times before here, but now, Wiki-evangelists and Cultists like those on Wikipedia Weekly are beginning to take the decline seriously. Is this it? Having been here long enough to know that posts like yours usually invite a combination of over-analysis as well as sarcasm that usually goes quite off-topic, I'd like to add my take on why Wikipedia is in the decline it is. (1) It's a generally unfriendly place. Newbies are often met with scorn and immediate reverts as well as suspicion. In short, if you've never edited before and happen upon an article that's popular, you will likely be told to go away (even if not that bluntly) by those who watch that article and have taken ownership of it. The encyclopedia anyone can edit has become an encyclopedia no one new can edit. (2) There's no consistency. Admins, rules, standards, etc...none of these things have consistency. And that inconsistency is completely out of control. Hypocrisy in administrative action and behavior is rampant. Long time editors are leaving by the handfuls because of the lack of consistency in how things are run. New editors are quickly discouraged by the lack of consistency. If Wikipedia were a corporation, they would have been out of business long ago. It's chaos run amok and no one at the top seems to care. (3) The cabal definitely exists (even if in little sub-groups) and has turned WP into a social network and a fancier version of Usenet. Social networks and Usenet are okay when they are identified as such, but in an environment such as WP when the stated mission is to "build an encyclopedia", then the social networking will eventually bring it down like a cancer that refuses to stop growing. (4) The admins and places like AN/I and the so-called process of "consensus" are a joke and serve no purpose other than to feed egos and build mini-kingdoms. 'Nuf said about that. (5) Banning and blocking are out of control and only serve to create a bigger problem because editors are getting pissed off at unjust blocks and bans and just return as socks. Socks then create a bigger problem and hassle and time-waster for admins and C/Us. I would be willing to wager that more time is spent by admins and self-appointed wiki-cops on chasing socks than editing the encyclopedia to make it better. What's the point in that? That's all I have for now - anyone here is welcome to build on this synopsis. 1. "It's a generally unfriendly place." I agree with that, and it's largely to do with the Machiavellian quality of people involved. When you find charm on Wikipedia, is usually means someone wants something. They are happy with it being a kind of Facebook, but they don't want floods of quiet, politely academic people involved as they would try and finish the thing, and have genuine grounds to complain when they see the slapdash way their specialist subjects are being treated. 2. "If Wikipedia were a corporation, they would have been out of business long ago. It's chaos run amok and no one at the top seems to care." Wikipedia is part of a corporation, and the business model involves chaos. They care allright - they profit from all the confusion. It's just a balancing act to them, and their main concern is to make Wikipedia less finanically reliable on a continuing stream of 'gratitude' donations that are largely due to the convenience factor supplied by Google's favourable page ranking. 3. "The cabal definitely exists (even if in little sub-groups) " Aside from those little cabals, there is The Cabal. How many of them understand the top level motivations and how many of them just want to kiss their arses doesn't matter: they slyly club together for the good of the sinister Project, and to achieve each other's aims. 4. The admins and places like AN/I and the so-called process of "consensus" are a joke and serve no purpose other than to feed egos and build mini-kingdoms. 'Nuf said about that. The admin(+) class is certainly full of self-serving egos. If you ask all of them individually to explain Wikipedia, or answer a prepared set of questions, they would all give seriously different answers. In fact, that would really show what a bunch of fuckwits they all are. Rlevse, though an extreme example of ineptitude, is just the tip of the iceberg. 5. " I would be willing to wager that more time is spent by admins and self-appointed wiki-cops on chasing socks than editing the encyclopedia to make it better. What's the point in that?" It's just not meant to be a great encyclopedia. Do you think they want 'finished' articles (or as good as complete) ? It's a fucking business. This post has been edited by powercorrupts: |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |