Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ General Discussion _ Wikipedia's fate
Posted by: jsalsman
Nothing lasts forever, not even the heat death of the universe.
Posted by: Somey
Aside from the problems with all WR polls that were pointed out recently, the problem with this one in particular is that we're not ranking these reasons, it's only allowing us to choose one, when in fact all of them (and several more) will probably factor into the ultimate failure of WP. Except for "terrorists will attack the servers," that is. If that happened, it would probably prolong WP's existence, not shorten it.
You also forgot two additional items, namely "Bots will make most human editors obsolete," and "New legislation will make it impossible for Wikipedia to operate as a revenge platform, causing users to look elsewhere for entertainment."
Still, I voted for Option 1, which is the most catch-all of the bunch - the other things will all be factors that cause #1 to happen, most likely. Even then, they'll still operate the servers for years afterward, barring the aforementioned new legislation.
Posted by: Web Fred
If or when it does happen, it won't be with a bang, it'll be with a fizzle in the same manner that AltaVista's popularity swung over to Google.
WP won't fail as such. People will get bored of it. Someone will come up with something 'better' (trans: different) a-la MySpace and Facebook. WP will continue but in relative obscurity. A bit like Jimbo really as he's just a one trick pony.
Posted by: lilburne
If or when it does happen, it won't be with a bang, it'll be with a fizzle in the same manner that AltaVista's popularity swung over to Google.
WP won't fail as such. People will get bored of it. Someone will come up with something 'better' (trans: different) a-la MySpace and Facebook. WP will continue but in relative obscurity. A bit like Jimbo really as he's just a one trick pony.
Undoubtedly. Think of all the previous websites one used to be involved with. How at one time they were popular everyone was there and then little by little, you visited less and less till one day you realized you hadn't signed in for six months or a year even. As they become uncool the new user retention drops off and the site has fewer and fewer users.
Posted by: Bottled_Spider
I voted for Edit wars will break out into real life because it's the funniest, and there's something so right about it, i.e. I can truly see it happening one day at some Wikipedia convention or other. Editor X, crazed on vodka, caffeine, "pills for his nerves" and adrenaline and tooled-up with a concealed Stanley knife confronts Admin Y and, seething with rage says "48-hour ban, eh? Well, ban this, you kiddy-fiddling fuck!" ......... swiiiiiiiit .........
Blood everywhere. Admin Y's allies, shocked into action, pile into Editor X and pummel him unconscious. X's friends run outside, seeking reinforcements. Entering the convention, Jimbo gets glassed and New York Brad gets a dose of bike-chain across the back of his neck. Chaos and terror ensue. Society crumbles.
Wasn't it Carl von Clausewitz that said "war is the continuation of politics by other means"? Makes sense to me.
Posted by: Emperor
Right now it's still possible for a human without bot assistance to control content. That's going to change in the next 10-20 years as bots become more and more sophisticated and less distinguishable from humans. I expect the Wikipedia of the future to be controlled by humans armed to the teeth with all kinds of bot-assistance.
At that point the paid editors gain an advantage because it's their day job, and they will have access to more training and resources than the nerds in their basements.
Posted by: Bottled_Spider
I think you're being far too conservative in your time projections. I'd say 5 to 10 years - 10 at the very most - for almost-human bots. Soon after that Wikipedia will be controlled by bots armed to the teeth with all kinds of human-assistance till they (the bots) can pass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test in their sleep. Not that they'll sleep.
Posted by: Detective
I think you're being far too conservative in your time projections. I'd say 5 to 10 years - 10 at the very most - for almost-human bots. Soon after that Wikipedia will be controlled by bots armed to the teeth with all kinds of human-assistance till they (the bots) can pass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test in their sleep. Not that they'll sleep.
Do you think SlimVirgin is a bot that never sleeps?
I'd love to see the bot that could emlate Shankbone or Fae, say.
Posted by: Web Fred
I think far too many people round here have been reading rather too much science fiction.
Posted by: Bottled_Spider
I'd love to see the bot that could emlate Shankbone or Fae, say.
I see no real problems with emulating those three characters. They're internet stereotypes, with more than a little intelligence, not much personality, no discernible morality, and possessive of simple/predictable behaviour patterns. Perfect for software emulation. Faebot could prove to be a bit of a bind, though. I fear some of his routines would hang a lot before the coded knots unravelled.
When I was ten, I read science fiction in secret........
Posted by: Angela Kennedy
I voted for Edit wars will break out into real life because it's the funniest, and there's something so right about it, i.e. I can truly see it happening one day at some Wikipedia convention or other. Editor X, crazed on vodka, caffeine, "pills for his nerves" and adrenaline and tooled-up with a concealed Stanley knife confronts Admin Y and, seething with rage says "48-hour ban, eh? Well, ban this, you kiddy-fiddling fuck!" ......... swiiiiiiiit .........
Blood everywhere. Admin Y's allies, shocked into action, pile into Editor X and pummel him unconscious. X's friends run outside, seeking reinforcements. Entering the convention, Jimbo gets glassed and New York Brad gets a dose of bike-chain across the back of his neck. Chaos and terror ensue. Society crumbles.
Wasn't it Carl von Clausewitz that said "war is the continuation of politics by other means"? Makes sense to me.
Yes. This one.
Posted by: FightingMac
I voted for Edit wars will break out into real life because it's the funniest, and there's something so right about it, i.e. I can truly see it happening one day at some Wikipedia convention or other.
Yup, glass the bastards and kick their pedo fucknuts into a blood pulp I say.
Posted by: FightingMac
Yup, glass the bastards and kick their pedo fucknuts into a blood pulp I say.
Plus whatever the equivalent is the other lot (I mean the ones with bumps on their chest and all that other stuff under their shirt tails). Anyone help me with that? Appreciated.
There's a Sandy Georgia I can't quite get a handle on for a start. I mean is that (whatever that is) really for real and how much does it cost anyway?
Posted by: EricBarbour
That would be most amusing, but really, it won't happen. The whole culture of the place is oriented
around backstabbing and manipulation, not confrontation. Basement-dwellers have poor muscle tone
from mass-consuming Cheetos and Jolt Cola, and know damn well that the other guy might kick their
asses good if they picked a real-world fight. So they pull dirty tricks online instead.
That's what an evil patroller is: a hapless nerd, unhealthy and weak, using Wikipedia to have power over others.
Seriously, though, I'm still amazed that someone hasn't walked into a Wikimania with an assault rifle, and
just gone totally berserk. Those fools have stiffed and screwed uncounted thousands of people over the
past 11 years, all over the world. It just takes one Anders Breivik or Seung-Hui Cho to create a massacre.
Why isn't there more out-of-Matrix violence associated with Wikipedia? The only really notorious, dangerous
"stalker" they've had was Amorrow. I defy you to name another one.
A website that millions of people use every day, and they have so few unbalanced enemies and pissed-off
victims willing to come forward, even to simply talk about it? Why?
Posted by: Emperor
A website that millions of people use every day, and they have so few unbalanced enemies and pissed-off
victims willing to come forward, even to simply talk about it? Why?
The reason is the amount of harm they do to heavy users isn't easy to measure. Most heavy users don't even realize that they are being harmed.
Those who come to their senses are usually embarrassed about wasting years of their life playing a less-fun computer game than WoW.
Posted by: FightingMac
I thinks that's right. A bit like smoking dope. Somethoing you do at college and maybe for a while after if you're hooked on it sexually (come on Timothy L ... we do all know, jacking and dope go together as naturally as crackers and cheese), but most eventually give up on it by their early thirties, the ones who carry on basically just wankers.
Wikipedia is now in the hands of college jerks, of that familiar rather earnest sort not especially talented in their studies and lacking social skills. We do all know that too. No mature adult would want to get involved in its administration presently and all its prattish dramas. Of course there are content providers out there still churning out the technical stuff about the Rimann Zeta Hypothesis and other uncontoversial content, but once you're into James Blunt territory you are talking Junior High and college jerks, presided over perhaps by some ageing ga-ga who probably does still do dope. like medicinally of course.
But what Eric says is right I think. I do think that might just happen.
Posted by: DoctorHver
I voted for other because it will probably be few of those opions factoring to gether or all or goverment finally coming to there sense and ban the website.
Posted by: the_undertow
WP is a staple; it will not die. Those of us who are active keep it alive. Those of us who are dissuaded will still find the links in the reference sections to be useful. Google will survive because it is forever changing. WP is essentially using the same model, solely by virtue of the turnover of those who are exhausted, and those who are eager to begin a life with the website.
Wikipedia isn't AOL, Opera, nor MySpace. It is Tabasco. It is an original, branded, and widely accepted. Not that McIlhenny does not have competition in the hot sauce department; however, it is found in nearly all households because it was an innovator and because it impressed upon the general public that it was the right way done first.
Wikipedia, like Tabasco, will waiver in popularity and preference, but will never be exhausted.
The public, myself included, has a proclivity to study the better mousetrap, and simply wait until the original device adapts, and then eclipses the better idea. Branding is longevity, as long as re-branding is an option, and longevity isn't as long as it seems.
Posted by: Retrospect
I think this doesn't make sense. If a new product comes along that is clearly better and gets loads of publicity saying it knocks Wikipedia into a ruddy cocked hat, it will usurp Wikipedia's place.
And don't let Ottava see that you said "waiver" instead of "waver" or he'll accuse you of being Indian. 
Posted by: Ottava
WP is a staple; it will not die. Those of us who are active keep it alive.
Great to see you around. Does this imply that you are on a new name kicking about on the site? Hopefully, this time Ironholds wont back stab you again.
Posted by: Michaeldsuarez
I think this doesn't make sense. If a new product comes along that is clearly better and gets loads of publicity saying it knocks Wikipedia into a ruddy cocked hat, it will usurp Wikipedia's place.
And don't let Ottava see that you said "waiver" instead of "waver" or he'll accuse you of being Indian.
http://herpolhode.com/rob/utah2000.pdf:
1. Don’t build, measure. (Phenomenology, not new things.)
2. Don’t go for breadth, go for depth. (Microspecialization, not systems work.)
3. Take an existing thing and tweak it.
Better technology (Plan 9) doesn't supplant older technology (Unix-like / Linux). People (and businesses) would rather use and improve existing products than create and adopt revolutionary replacements.
Wikipedia and MediaWiki will remain dominant even if better alternatives appear. The same can be said about Google and search engines.
Posted by: the_undertow
WP is a staple; it will not die. Those of us who are active keep it alive.
Great to see you around. Does this imply that you are on a new name kicking about on the site? Hopefully, this time Ironholds wont back stab you again.
I was speaking extemporaneously, trying to involve everyone in the conversation. WP for me was a bad break-up. At first, I despised the fact that all of my search results lead to WP. Google could just spare all of us the drama, and redirect to WP's article.
That being said, I've dealt with my issues and I no longer contribute. There is no desire to do so, but every once in awhile, I do wonder about my friends here and feel like chatting.
What Ironholds did was done to a different iteration of me, however, it was still done and I'll likely never come out and proclaim that "it's all good," because it was not.
Posted by: Ottava
I was speaking extemporaneously, trying to involve everyone in the conversation. WP for me was a bad break-up. At first, I despised the fact that all of my search results lead to WP. Google could just spare all of us the drama, and redirect to WP's article.
That being said, I've dealt with my issues and I no longer contribute. There is no desire to do so, but every once in awhile, I do wonder about my friends here and feel like chatting.
What Ironholds did was done to a different iteration of me, however, it was still done and I'll likely never come out and proclaim that "it's all good," because it was not.
Well, I can tell you that you weren't the first nor the last that Ironholds stabbed and destroyed on his way to securing a job with the WMF and latching onto the inner circle there.
Posted by: Text
In another thread started at the end of 2007:
...
I give it three more years.
Two and a half, tops
Wikipedia: 13%
Youtube: 23%
Facebook: 33%
Gogl: 43%
After a strong force obscures wikipedia, it will fall down around 3% reach in 3 years (similarly to Myspace 2007-2010) and around position 20 on alexa
That was speculation made between 2007 and 2010.
It's 2013 now. Alexa reports that this year, Wikipedia went from sixth to seventh or eighth most visited site in the world, being surpassed by Amazon and Baidu (first in China, fifth in the world).
Facebook, Google, and Youtube are the top three sites. Myspace is sharply falling down, currently being the 411th most visited site.
Posted by: Text
Are people actually relying on information they find on Wikipedia?
How can one know if someone is reading the first line of a page and then going away to YouTube a minute later?
How can one know if the average Joe understands that information they find online is very unreliable and questionable at best?
Would anyone be concerned if average Joe thought a subject of a page is a criminal because of false information that has been posted?
http://fleishmanhillard.com/2012/01/news-and-opinions/2012-digital-influence-index-shows-internet-as-leading-influence-in-consumer-purchasing-choices/
Nearly half of those surveyed (42 percent) currently follow or friend a brand on a social networking site. While the reasons vary widely by country, the overall greatest motivation: to learn more about the brand (79 percent).
Nearly one in five individuals now looks to Facebook to obtain information about a brand or product.
Almost two out of three consumers surveyed use a mobile/smartphone to gain information on a brand, product or destination at least three or four days a week.
Overall, 43 percent of consumers have played a game with other people on a PC, and 28 percent have done so using a mobile device.
This year's Digital Influence Index produced a total of 11 key insights into the influence the Internet wields in consumers' lives. A sampling of other findings includes:
Eighty-nine percent of consumers surveyed use Internet search engines to make purchasing decisions, punctuating the need for a strong search engine optimization (SEO) strategy.
Group-buying sites are gaining popularity, with two-thirds of consumers claiming awareness of services like Groupon and LivingSocial – with 60 percent of those respondents belonging to such sites.
When choosing healthcare products and services, 75 percent said they rely on online information.
People say they tend to rely on what others write about others, but what is the actual ratio of reliance?
http://nextbison.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/should-you-believe-wikipedia/
Posted by: Jay
Are people actually relying on information they find on Wikipedia?