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?

[anklet with the pom-pom]

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:

[taiwopanfob]

(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.

It is no coincidence that several high ranking Wikipediots are ex-USENET people. Even phrases like "Cabal" and "TINC" are old USENET idioms. Wikipedia can be viewed in some sense as USENET 2.0, where the principal feature is that the kill-files for a small set of people are the kill-files for everyone. This was long a wet-dream of many in USENET land.

[jayvdb]

(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.

It is no coincidence that several high ranking Wikipediots are ex-USENET people. Even phrases like "Cabal" and "TINC" are old USENET idioms. Wikipedia can be viewed in some sense as USENET 2.0, where the principal feature is that the kill-files for a small set of people are the kill-files for everyone. This was long a wet-dream of many in USENET land.

It is a wet-dream of most discourse communities; most implement something similar.
Is the overlap between USENET and Wikipedia any greater than the overlap between Wikipedia and hams?

[Kelly Martin]

Is the overlap between USENET and Wikipedia any greater than the overlap between Wikipedia and hams?

Almost certainly. First of all, a lot of hams still yet eschew the Internet, being some sort of perverse Luddites who only embrace technologies that are older than they are. Secondly, many of the hams who do use the Internet have learned that Wikipedia's hovercraft is full of eels, and avoid it on that basis. (I can't count the number of times I've seen hams advised to avoid Wikipedia as a source, because it's so unreliable.) Thirdly, and most importantly: being a ham isn't about being argumentative. It's about tinkering with radio technology. The motivational intersect just isn't there.

Yes, some hams go onto 75 meters at night and argue politics. But they're a small part of the hobby; it's a small fraction of hams that even operate on 75 meter phone, let alone do so to discuss politics. On the other hand, virtually everyone on USENET went onto USENET to argue about something or another, to show off their knowledge, to put down others, to attempt to publish their own writings, or to troll. Wikipedia serves all of these motivations, to degrees comparable to how USENET did. Ham radio, not so much.

[EricBarbour]

Yes, some hams go onto 75 meters at night and argue politics. But they're a small part of the hobby; it's a small fraction of hams that even operate on 75 meter phone, let alone do so to discuss politics. On the other hand, virtually everyone on USENET went onto USENET to argue about something or another, to show off their knowledge, to put down others, to attempt to publish their own writings, or to troll. Wikipedia serves all of these motivations, to degrees comparable to how USENET did. Ham radio, not so much.

I have to disagree, at least to a limited extent. The ham bands are nowadays carrying trollery,
abuse, obscene epithets, and idiocy to an extent previously unseen. (Okay, unheard.)

Anyone remember my blog post about the infamous 435 repeater in LA?
Sometimes, hams have to share the 2-meter band with cops.
How about 14.313? That's been going on for a long time, too.
How about the nuts who run K1MAN? The FCC and ARRL have been trying to shut them down for 20+ years.....
You could try reading this article and this one.
(And the comments below them, which are even more informative.)

Now there's even a list of "LIDs", or ham operators who are famous for incompetence, abuse, etc.

So, amateur radio is suffering the same loss of civility as other parts of society.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: