What is the life expectancy of Wikipedia?, What is the expiration date on your brain? Options

Eh, the stuff deletionists go after most aren't exactly problem articles. Have you ever seen an ethnic dispute or a fringe scientific theory being pushed on an article about some middle school in Iowa? No... the real problems occur on articles no one wants to delete anyway, like ones about the Armenian Holocaust or Global Warming. School articles just get simple vandalism... that's mostly dealt with by bots anyway... school articles literally never go to arbitration, it's rare that there isn't an open arbcom case about some ethnic dispute. So it's not that realistic Wikipedia will just suddenly become unmanageable when we get our 3 millionth article (people used to say 1 millionth)... some articles are literally thousands of times more likely to get problem editors than others.

Not all articles are created equal, when it comes to problems and disputes. You can't really delete your way out of having the kinds of articles people want to POV push on... because they sure aren't POV pushing on the Seinfeld episode list articles. If people think we can just delete a few thousand "cruft" articles and the POV pushers, who weren't editting cruft articles anyway, will go away... I don't think they're really thinking it through.

This post has been edited by w.marsh: Mon 31st December 2007, 2:46am

You'd be surprised to learn that there has been three attempt to request the deletion of the Armenian genocide article, including with votes.

POV pushing, I'd start deleting forks, like the various FORKs on Nagorno-Karabakh

Administrative divisions of Nagorno-Karabakh 1
Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast 2
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic 3
Nagorno-Karabakh 4
Azerbaijani administrative divisions of Nagorno-Karabakh 5

And try to get one deleted, and see if you succeed. Good luck

So wonder nationalist cases go to arbitration, and never anything get fixed, since the real problem will be called ''content dispute.''

Eh, the stuff deletionists go after most aren't exactly problem articles. Have you ever seen an ethnic dispute or a fringe scientific theory being pushed on an article about some middle school in Iowa? No... the real problems occur on articles no one wants to delete anyway, like ones about the Armenian Holocaust or Global Warming. School articles just get simple vandalism... that's mostly dealt with by bots anyway... school articles literally never go to arbitration, it's rare that there isn't an open arbcom case about some ethnic dispute. So it's not that realistic Wikipedia will just suddenly become unmanageable when we get our 3 millionth article (people used to say 1 millionth)... some articles are literally thousands of times more likely to get problem editors than others.

Not all articles are created equal, when it comes to problems and disputes. You can't really delete your way out of having the kinds of articles people want to POV push on... because they sure aren't POV pushing on the Seinfeld episode list articles. If people think we can just delete a few thousand "cruft" articles and the POV pushers, who weren't editting cruft articles anyway, will go away... I don't think they're really thinking it through.

This post has been edited by Xidaf: Mon 31st December 2007, 3:15am

Not all articles are created equal, when it comes to problems and disputes. You can't really delete your way out of having the kinds of articles people want to POV push on... because they sure aren't POV pushing on the Seinfeld episode list articles. If people think we can just delete a few thousand "cruft" articles and the POV pushers, who weren't editting cruft articles anyway, will go away... I don't think they're really thinking it through.

Well, remember the question was why do people become deletionists, not whether or not they're actually going about it an effective or efficient manner. I should think it goes without saying that "cruft" articles are vastly less likely to be warred over, even if the potential is always there.

The task of reorganizing the controversial and warred-over material on WP to allow for minimal maintenance would probably require abandoning NPOV for something more like "MPOV," "M" meaning "Multiple," and of course there are plenty of folks on WP who insist that NPOV is "non-negotiable." What that means in the long term is uncertain - if WP splinters into multiple sites, each with different administrative and content-related policies, then you might see some of those splinter sites swap NPOV for something more realistic. Another possibility is that POV competition (such as Conservapedia) will draw off people now opposing the current dominating stakeholders, leaving them to do whatever they want, which will almost certainly be to WP's detriment. (All of this assumes a post-lockdown environment, of course.)

But as for the cruft, you're correct in that deleting that stuff isn't going to reduce conflict in the short term. However, each deletion sends a message to someone who might consider adding a new article, cruft-ish or otherwise: "We won't take just anything, you have to make it worth our time." That attitude should appeal more to the committed maintainers, even if it discourages a few n00bs - though IMO, most of the ones being discouraged will be "drive-by" users and SPA's, not potential admins and talented writer/researcher types... What's more, new and poorly-written cruft makes quality-conscious writers feel like their efforts are cheapened, because they assume (if not know from experience) that nobody outside of the "FA crew" is going to look critically at the actual cruft articles when judging the worthiness of other editors, at least for things like RfA's. So why bother doing a good job of it, if that's your objective?

Long story short, I understand that it's a conceptual stretch to link deletionism with editor retention - in fact, it probably seems counter-intuitive. But if there's any truth to the theory at all, then WP is clearly at a point where retention of "good editors" is worth the loss of some new articles, and has been for a long time now. Remember, the encyclopedia "doesn't have to be finished tomorrow," but it will never get finished at all if tomorrow, everyone quits.

Wikinfo has SPOV (sympathetic point of view). What that means is that the main articles should contain nothing negative about the subject. Such material must go in a linked "Criticisms of ..." article. How that would relate to global warming I've no idea.

I have noticed that people editing on IPs will go and act like somewhere they have a watchlist when IPs don't and then they'll stalk out their favorite articles and using IPs, they'll just go any remove any new changes they don't like. Any idea what's up with that sort of thing since the IPs can't have watchlists?

The task of reorganizing the controversial and warred-over material on WP to allow for minimal maintenance would probably require abandoning NPOV for something more like "MPOV," "M" meaning "Multiple," and of course there are plenty of folks on WP who insist that NPOV is "non-negotiable." What that means in the long term is uncertain - if WP splinters into multiple sites, each with different administrative and content-related policies, then you might see some of those splinter sites swap NPOV for something more realistic. Another possibility is that POV competition (such as Conservapedia) will draw off people now opposing the current dominating stakeholders, leaving them to do whatever they want, which will almost certainly be to WP's detriment. (All of this assumes a post-lockdown environment, of course.)

I've seen that people on wikipedia even if they can't add their own POV content, they'll make sure to remove content until the article is skewed to their POV.

If you load enough weight on both sides of an otherwise balanced teeter-totter, you'll break it.

I have noticed that people editing on IPs will go and act like somewhere they have a watchlist when IPs don't and then they'll stalk out their favorite articles and using IPs, they'll just go any remove any new changes they don't like. Any idea what's up with that sort of thing since the IPs can't have watchlists?

There are various possibilities. They may have an account with a watchlist but log out before they edit (It takes all sorts), or they may check the history of each article manually.

If you load enough weight on both sides of an otherwise balanced teeter-totter, you'll break it.

Can you expand on that?

It takes all sorts

Can you expand on that?

I have noticed that people editing on IPs will go and act like somewhere they have a watchlist when IPs don't and then they'll stalk out their favorite articles and using IPs, they'll just go any remove any new changes they don't like. Any idea what's up with that sort of thing since the IPs can't have watchlists?

The task of reorganizing the controversial and warred-over material on WP to allow for minimal maintenance would probably require abandoning NPOV for something more like "MPOV," "M" meaning "Multiple," and of course there are plenty of folks on WP who insist that NPOV is "non-negotiable." What that means in the long term is uncertain - if WP splinters into multiple sites, each with different administrative and content-related policies, then you might see some of those splinter sites swap NPOV for something more realistic. Another possibility is that POV competition (such as Conservapedia) will draw off people now opposing the current dominating stakeholders, leaving them to do whatever they want, which will almost certainly be to WP's detriment. (All of this assumes a post-lockdown environment, of course.)

I've seen that people on wikipedia even if they can't add their own POV content, they'll make sure to remove content until the article is skewed to their POV.

My understanding of NPOV is the application of MPOV - the arguments are generally around Undue Weight and the disallowance of WP:Fringe. To take some differing POV's and to formulate a middle ground and call it Neutral violates WP:SYN, in my mind.

Not that my interpretation of this and many other policies enjoys the approbation of all of the WP community, you understand?

If you load enough weight on both sides of an otherwise balanced teeter-totter, you'll break it.

Can you expand on that?

I could, but it would be more instructive to conduct an experiment in the kitchen, with a toothpick or wooden skewer.

It takes all sorts

Can you expand on that?

There are several kinds of sorts: Bubble Sort, Post Office Sort, Quick Sort, and so on.

If you load enough weight on both sides of an otherwise balanced teeter-totter, you'll break it.

Can you expand on that?

I'd guess he's saying that as more people participate in WP conflicts, particularly content disputes over material that couldn't possibly be made objective or "neutral" to begin with, the likelihood of defection, quittings, and ultimately lockdown increases along with it.

Another point to be made, which is only slightly tangential to this one, is that this is one of those "frog in boiling water" situations. If a huge number of angry people, let's say 50,000 or more, suddenly showed up on WP within the space of a few days, and attacked everything in various ways, the current crop of established users would presumably be overwhelmed, and the entire database would probably have to be locked down to cope with it. At that point, the established users would go into overdrive to figure out what had just happened and how to fix the situation, and they'd probably have a workable "partial-lockdown" solution within a few days, and implementation within a few weeks. But obviously it won't occur that way - the process leading into a lockdown phase will be so gradual and subtle, they probably won't even realize what they're being led into as they gradually apply more and more "minor" restrictions and run more and more maintenance "bots."

To use the "balanced teeter-totter" analogy, if hundreds of people jumped on a see-saw all at once, it would break, and you'd just go and get bigger and better board - easy solution. Whereas, if you just keep adding people to the see-saw gradually over time, the board will still break, but people will have plenty of opportunities to say things like, "man, there are too many people on this see-saw," and "we've got to stop letting just anybody get on this thing," which in turn will inevitably lead to more arguing and general mayhem.

It takes all sorts

Can you expand on that?

"It takes all sorts to make a world." You or I might think someone is nuts if he logs in to check his watch list, then logs out to edit, but people are free to do so if they wish.

What is the life expectancy of Wikipedia?

1) It has a scandal-prone structure, from the Board of Trustees right down to "anyone can edit" — which includes an anon editing an article on Seigenthaler that sat there for four months.

2) The person most closely associated with Wikipedia loves his celebrity status but prefers to spin away over Wikipedia's problems rather than deal with them.

3) The social networking model, from Wikipedia, to Orkut in Brazil, to Napster, Grokster, and YouTube and copyright, is headed for a more restrictive legal environment.

4) To the extent that any sort of wiki-type "encyclopedia" survives, it will probably have to go with non-anonymous editing. Examples are Citizendium, and Google's Knol.

5) The funds from donations will not be sufficient to sustain the needs of the Wikimedia Foundation. If Google is serious about Knol, it may even be too late to start showing ads on Wikipedia. Google is not likely to rank Wikipedia well if it competes with Knol.

6) The mainstream media is losing its infatuation with Wikipedia.

I give it three more years.

I believe you are spot on with your bullet points, Daniel, however, greatly optimistic/conservative with your timeline. I look at it from a legal initiative and thesis; ergo, the speed at which the model must change is probably closer to 12 months. Having said that, a sea change will take place within 18 months; most likely in the form of a merger and / or takeover of the existing portfolio of articles.

I fully expect KNOL to be the most likely candidate for the beneficial ownership of the project. Google has the best math and the capital to do things right; I believe they will step up with either Apple or Microsoft, or both, and make it a whole package for all lifestyles: a social and educational platform. They will staff up professionals to take over certain accounts / articles and set them up as projects.

The beginning is the end is the beginning, again.

Let's see...the self induced and dedicated destruction at WP, brought about by corruption at every turn, may, in fact, change the timeline you talk about, Daniel. Nicht Vahr?

For reasons unbeknownst to me, the surviving founders and organizers of Wikipedia allowed the project to develop an unsustainable governance model that also happens to be dysfunctional in a mildly interesting way. The main byproduct of the haphazard governance model is lunatic social drama. Eventually it's perceived as banal.

For reasons unbeknownst to me, the surviving founders and organizers of Wikipedia allowed the project to develop an unsustainable governance model that also happens to be dysfunctional in a mildly interesting way. The main byproduct of the haphazard governance model is lunatic social drama. Eventually it's perceived as banal.

Much like a 6th grade dance!

Ergo, it can never be taken seriously as a business model. You are so right sir!

Resurrecting this topic, because Daniel Brandt started this thread towards the tail end of 2007, and we are close to the 3 years he predicted Wikipedia would last. When I was more active in the Wikipedia related sections of these boards, I would certainly say that I was genuinely fascinated with these hypothetical theories about Wikipedia's future, and this was one of the threads that really struck a chord with me.

Since I've only just recently gotten myself a new WP account and have been kinda out the loop with WP developments, can someone please fill me in on what the current situation is with each of the 6 bullet points Daniel raised with regards to how long he felt in conclusion Wikipedia would last? And also how long can WP expect to last at present?

1) It has a scandal-prone structure, from the Board of Trustees right down to "anyone can edit" — which includes an anon editing an article on Seigenthaler that sat there for four months.

2) The person most closely associated with Wikipedia loves his celebrity status but prefers to spin away over Wikipedia's problems rather than deal with them.

3) The social networking model, from Wikipedia, to Orkut in Brazil, to Napster, Grokster, and YouTube and copyright, is headed for a more restrictive legal environment.

4) To the extent that any sort of wiki-type "encyclopedia" survives, it will probably have to go with non-anonymous editing. Examples are Citizendium, and Google's Knol.

5) The funds from donations will not be sufficient to sustain the needs of the Wikimedia Foundation. If Google is serious about Knol, it may even be too late to start showing ads on Wikipedia. Google is not likely to rank Wikipedia well if it competes with Knol.

6) The mainstream media is losing its infatuation with Wikipedia.

Resurrecting this topic, because Daniel Brandt started this thread towards the tail end of 2007, and we are close to the 3 years he predicted Wikipedia would last. When I was more active in the Wikipedia related sections of these boards, I would certainly say that I was genuinely fascinated with these hypothetical theories about Wikipedia's future, and this was one of the threads that really struck a chord with me.

Since I've only just recently gotten myself a new WP account and have been kinda out the loop with WP developments, can someone please fill me in on what the current situation is with each of the 6 bullet points Daniel raised with regards to how long he felt in conclusion Wikipedia would last? And also how long can WP expect to last at present?

I don't know. We've seen decay and no improvement on all the points Brandt mentions, but we're not to the point that donors have given up in disgust, yet.

Like many predictions of the future, I think this one is valid, but the timeline is screwed up. IOW, the things wise people expect in the future do arrive, but never WHEN they think. And not in the combos it was thought they'd come in. Suppose I'd told you 35 years ago, in 1975, that you'd have a pocket telephone in 2010 that would have satellite positioning on an internal map so you'd never be lost, and show you downloaded movies, too-- but your car would still have a lead-acid battery? Popular Science would never have published THAT article. Instead, every year in the 1970's, they had an article on the coming new car batteries.

Wikipedia continues to amaze due to the small group of fanatics who write the thing's best content, IN SPITE of the horrid social structure that continues to parasitize it, and the boobs that run it. That content is what the rest of the world (and the donors) see. No, it's not fair. But progress is never fair to the people actually responsible for it-- have you noticed that?

That content is the golden jewelry and the tile fresco art that will remain, when the social mess that is WP and WMF have gone the way of Hurculaneum and Pompeii. WP is one seed crystal for organizing the world's knowledge. It's like TV in 1939: an ugly wonder, but it works well enough that the possiblities and some inevitabilities are clear. It isn't going to simply go away, no matter how much it changes, or who ends up running it in the future. The idea is permanent, and the some of the content will have a permanent impact. But, as ever with human enterprises, the people now who think they are the focus of the world, will one day simply be holes and curiosities in the settled volcanic ashes of history. Only their ideas and work (what survives of it) will remain.

{{blah blah blah}}

Translation — “Hooray 4 Nazi Science”

Jon

I think that Brandt's predictions will only "come true" the moment that a well-organized legal case punctures the Section 230 shield that Wikipedia hides behind. Like the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, nobody could predict EXACTLY when they would happen, but certainly people had formulated relatively clear visions prior to that date of how terrorists might fly commercial aircraft into tall buildings.

{{blah blah blah}}

Translation — “Hooray 4 Nazi Science”

Jon

You mean the electron microscope? Yes, indeed. Can't find viruses without it.

The Nazis were the first to propose a link between smoking and lung cancer. We should not have listened, since they were Nazis.

Eisenhower borrowed the idea of a national freeway system from the Nazis. Perhaps we shouldn't have built it.

And all those neat pictures of the planets? Try doing that without big liquid fueled rockets. They all have the blood stained fingerprints of the Nazis in general and von Braun in particular, all over them. Don't look!