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?

[dtobias]

Phase one (2003-2005): The idealists, the encyclopedists, the basically honest gnome types. Excemplified by Larry Sanger. They got deposed by..

Phase two (2005-2007): The power gamers, the clique builders, the POV pushers, the hidden agenda figures. Best exemplified by SlimVirgin.

Phase three (2007-2008): The rebels vs The power gamers. The rise of the community gadflys who contribute little to content, but are engaged in an ongoing war with Phase Two. Best exemplified by Dan Tobias.

Hmm... I'm not sure I saw this when it was first posted last year... I'm touched to be made the exemplar of a phase.

But since the project started in 2001, is there a phase zero before that?

[Kato]

Phase one (2003-2005): The idealists, the encyclopedists, the basically honest gnome types. Excemplified by Larry Sanger. They got deposed by..

Phase two (2005-2007): The power gamers, the clique builders, the POV pushers, the hidden agenda figures. Best exemplified by SlimVirgin.

Phase three (2007-2008): The rebels vs The power gamers. The rise of the community gadflys who contribute little to content, but are engaged in an ongoing war with Phase Two. Best exemplified by Dan Tobias.

Hmm... I'm not sure I saw this when it was first posted last year... I'm touched to be made the exemplar of a phase.

Sorry Dan, but that was a year ago. The editor who best exemplifies the "rebels", and is the embodiment of a community eating itself, is, of course, Giano. You've been usurped.

Today, Giano's ally Geogre wrote during yet another Giano war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=269511007

Jimbo's reaction is unhelpful, if not hysterical. It is ill-advised, at best, and seems to prove again that the best label these days for Jimbo is less "god-king" and more Jimbo ðe unræd. That David Gerard or FT2 is all over the blog making a tangle of his argument and spitting bile at everyone who dares question him only ensures that he is unreadable and unbelievable...

blah... blah... blah (added by me)

A community dominated by individuals like Giano, Geogre, David Gerard and FT2 is bound to self-implode. Who would stick around if they were the people calling the shots? Is it any wonder editor numbers are tailing off?

[Random832]

Phase three (2007-2008)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)/b] The rebels vs The power gamers. The rise of the community gadflys who contribute little to content, but are engaged in an ongoing war with Phase Two. Best exemplified by Dan Tobias.

Hmm... I'm not sure I saw this when it was first posted last year... I'm touched to be made the exemplar of a phase.

Sorry Dan, but that was a year ago. The editor who best exemplifies the "rebels", and is the embodiment of a community eating itself, is, of course, Giano. You've been usurped.

Really? For one thing, he doesn't really fit the "contribute little to content" part - and he's also more than willing to side with the "cabal" when it suits him (see e.g. his about-face on the Peter Damian issue). I think we may be seeing the beginnings of a phase four.