The decline of the WP "Community", Light at the end of this dark tunnel? Options

[Kato]

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:

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?

[EricBarbour]

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fool.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/offtopic.gif)

Would you rather put up with Awbrey's puns, or SlimVirgin and David Gerard shitting on your collective heads every day?
Every community has to put up with its share of smartasses, trolls, backstabbers, and crazies.
WR isn't very bad at all, compared to the alternative.

Now, back to the "communi-dioty". Allow me to post that blubber from Jimbo's talkpage, in case it
'gets mysteriously lost'.

Adminship and RfA

There is a long discussion up above, but rather than extending that long thread (I am hoping it will be archived soon), I want to start a new thread here. User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month is the cornerstone of this particular discussion; please try to stay on topic and very philosophical, rather than getting into specific debates about specific incidents at RfA (though of course examples might be needed).

1. Should we actively seek to recruit more candidates to RfA? In 2007 there were 920, in 2009 there were only 355 - despite site traffic having increased substantially. Presumably, candidates respond more or less rationally to incentives... it being harder to pass RfA meant that only more-qualified candidates applied in the first place.

Empirical questions around which we need understanding would include: what actual reasons do actual people give (i.e. not speculation) for not applying in the first place?

2. Should we actively seek to change the standards for passing RfA, to make it easier again? I think it clear that many active admins today, the cohort created as admins in 2005-2007, would not pass RfA today.

Empirical questions around which we need understanding would include: what actual reasons are there for the increased level of scrutiny, and are we scrutinizing for the right things?

3. In order to make it more comfortable to create more admins, should we make it easier to lose the admin bit in case things don't work out well? Currently, making it to adminship is not unlike making it into the House of Lords in the UK - pretty hard to get kicked out. There are some good reasons for this: we want admins to have the ability to withstand a certain amount of populist pressure, so that we can preserve a culture with diversity of viewpoint and active debate around key issues.

There are multiple ways to go about this: one concern people have raised is that ArbCom, being elected by the admin community for the most part (everyone can vote, but admin votes are easily the swing vote), may not have the political independence to take tough decisions against popular admins who have not been behaving well. I am not sure I share that concern, but it is an empirical question.

Empirical questions around which we need understanding would include: how have voluntary admin recall processes tended to work out in practice? Do ArbCom members, present and past, feel politically empowered to take action against popular admins who need discipline?

4. What is the right number of admins, anyway? Or, more in line with the big picture philosophical questions about which I am seeking to encourage more discussion: what are the right metrics for determining whether we have enough admins?

I have a feeling this is going to be a long-ish discussion. Please do try, therefore, to stay directly on-topic as much as we can. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you bloody dolt. Your creation has a problem---you.