Yes, we have no bananas!, Or: where did all the admins go? Options Rating

[A Horse With No Name]

Danger, Will Robinson! We are running low on admins!

Or...will the last admin remaining please remember to turn off the lights on the way out?

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Wonderful. There is hope ... or rather oblivion ... at the end of the tunnel.

What happens if they have a Wikipedia and no one turns up to administrate it? I am glad at least to see young Julian Cotton state the obvious and introduce "Janitor" status into the discussion.

[Eva Destruction]

What happens if they have a Wikipedia and no one turns up to administrate it?

Prosaic answer is, they make up a bunch of people to admin status until the balance is restored. Exactly the same as Somey or Selina would do if Gomi and Hersch left here.

What everyone in that discussion is missing is the obvious point, that Wikipedia is becoming ever more unmanageable; with the numbers of editors and admins both remaining roughly static, but the Blofelds of the world constantly spewing more crap into the system, the editor/article ratio is now at 1:500, and is well past the point where it's even physically possible to monitor every article for vandalism, let alone for non-obvious defamation and inaccuracy. That is the time-bomb that will eventually destroy everything running a Wiki model that doesn't put strict controls in place; unlike print, the web is one of the few media where it's actually easier to create than to destroy, and uncontrolled growth is better known as "cancer".

[Krimpet]

What everyone in that discussion is missing is the obvious point, that Wikipedia is becoming ever more unmanageable; with the numbers of editors and admins both remaining roughly static, but the Blofelds of the world constantly spewing more crap into the system, the editor/article ratio is now at 1:500, and is well past the point where it's even physically possible to monitor every article for vandalism, let alone for non-obvious defamation and inaccuracy.

I think the English Wikipedia has proven that the wiki model doesn't scale well beyond a niche community.

Compare the original wiki, which is still chugging along happily a decade and a half later. It has no page histories (only a single prior revision per page is available), no administrators except the site admin, and anyone can delete a page. But it works well as a niche community for discussion of software design and development. In-house wikis have been found to work well at corporations and other organizations, too: especially for documentation.

But Wikipedia hit a wall with the real Wiki model very early on. It's only been able to scale by constantly bolting on additional technical measures to keep things under control: the replacement software that became MediaWiki, CheckUser, Oversight, rollback, new page patrolling, apps like Huggle, the Abuse Filter...

Which is why I think it's funny that some vehemently oppose Flagged Revisions as being "unwiki" or "not friendly to noobs." Without occasional changes like Flagged Revisions being bolted on, the signal-to-noise ratio continues to fall.

[Ottava]

Prosaic answer is, they make up a bunch of people to admin status until the balance is restored.

Isn't that how Everyking slipped back in?

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

I wonder if the numbers kept dropping whether they would ever introduce paid editing to keep the balance up?

Most groups suffer from social entropy. Will they start dropping standards of contributors and the content lower with it?

I have no idea why anyone would carry on editing for free other than as symptomatic of some mental illness.

Really, the wiki-slaves ought to see their chance and start to organize strike actions demanding better conditions.

For example, a $1,000,000 of the Foundations ill gotten gains would buy 2,000 swanky new Apple iPads. Twice as many as their are committed servants.

Why not a 'pay day' for the loyal adherents under the guise of making them better equipped to fight the good fight? A small incentive or thank you.

[Malleus]

I have no idea why anyone would carry on editing for free other than as symptomatic of some mental illness.

Obviously I can't speak for others, but my hope is that wikipedia's decent content will survive wikipedia's inevitable death. Why do it for nothing? Well, why does anyone donate to a charity?

This post has been edited by Malleus: Sat 20th March 2010, 1:25am

[Kevin]

I have no idea why anyone would carry on editing for free other than as symptomatic of some mental illness.

Obviously I can't speak for others, but my hope is that wikipedia's decent content will survive wikipedia's inevitable death. Why do it for nothing? Well, why does anyone donate to a charity?

It is equally likely that the shit content will also survive.

[EricBarbour]

I have no idea why anyone would carry on editing for free other than as symptomatic of some mental illness.

Obviously I can't speak for others, but my hope is that wikipedia's decent content will survive wikipedia's inevitable death. Why do it for nothing? Well, why does anyone donate to a charity?

It is equally likely that the shit content will also survive.

Yes, but it's all being mirrored by other websites. As I've said, when the WP-Monster collapses, unconnected people will be able to take the good content, remove the bad, and create a proper web-encyclopedia. Not guaranteed to happen but likely, given that the source wiki has collapsed by then, and nobody is around to claim any kind of copyright/copyleft over the shreds.

And I can forsee how the end will come. There will be so few janitors left that the database will become a plaything for hackers, penis-pill spammers, and /b/tards. Once nobody's able or willing to clean it up, it will probably degrade very quickly. (Ever seen what happens to a Wordpress blog when hackers find a weakness? If you don't get and install an update to fix it promptly, it turns into a spam haven.....within 2-3 days.)

Then the WMF will either shut off the servers and go "oops we need more money", or sit there and wait for a saviour.

[Malleus]

And I can forsee how the end will come. There will be so few janitors left that the database will become a plaything for hackers, penis-pill spammers, and /b/tards. Once nobody's able or willing to clean it up, it will probably degrade very quickly. (Ever seen what happens to a Wordpress blog when hackers find a weakness? If you don't get and install an update to fix it promptly, it turns into a spam haven.....within 2-3 days.)

I agree with you that it could happen surprisingly quickly.

More likely though I think is that these "janitors" will soon be the equivalent of the knight guarding the Holy Grail. He chose, poorly

This post has been edited by Malleus: Sat 20th March 2010, 4:58am

[everyking]

I think the English Wikipedia has proven that the wiki model doesn't scale well beyond a niche community.

Compare the original wiki, which is still chugging along happily a decade and a half later. It has no page histories (only a single prior revision per page is available), no administrators except the site admin, and anyone can delete a page. But it works well as a niche community for discussion of software design and development. In-house wikis have been found to work well at corporations and other organizations, too: especially for documentation.

But Wikipedia hit a wall with the real Wiki model very early on. It's only been able to scale by constantly bolting on additional technical measures to keep things under control: the replacement software that became MediaWiki, CheckUser, Oversight, rollback, new page patrolling, apps like Huggle, the Abuse Filter...

Which is why I think it's funny that some vehemently oppose Flagged Revisions as being "unwiki" or "not friendly to noobs." Without occasional changes like Flagged Revisions being bolted on, the signal-to-noise ratio continues to fall.

It has produced a massively popular reference site, hasn't it? That seems like a pretty good measure of success.

Humanity hit a wall with the "real" human model of hunting and gathering very early on. It's only been able to scale by constantly bolting on additional technical measures...

Certainly people shouldn't be dogmatic about what constitutes a genuine wiki model.

[thekohser]

One day, I will tell the story of America Online and its Homework Help network of volunteer helpers, of whom I was one. After probably 900 hours of service, I got into it with AOL corporate and program manager Hal Rosengarten, because they actively forbade me from trying to organize a movement where AOL would donate to charity 2 cents for every question the hundreds of educators like myself answered. Two cents.

Some things never change.

Well, what do you know. I've already told the story.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Humanity hit a wall with the "real" human model of hunting and gathering very early on. It's only been able to scale by constantly bolting on additional technical measures...

As oft proposed here, the next phase of evolution was tribalism which invariably involved bashing other tribes over the head, stealing their land and raping their women (or have I been reading too much of the Bible!?!) ... and/or develop unique identifying memes they called religions.

So I guess what we all wait for is a new Wiki-Messiah to step forward with a better meme (a sort of Richard Dawkins of Nazareth figure), or a horde of roving copyediting Mongols to fall upon it and sort it out. Perhaps we actually need Jimbo to die and then be reincarnated in some way ... a sign, a true miracle to bind us all together again?

No, I value the idea of a freely available encyclopedia. I just don't see why anyone should do it for free when it has millions of dollars in the bank.

If someone has been working all year, they really should chuck them an iPad, or at least pay for their DSL line. Imagine ...

ADMIN FOR WIKIPEDIA ... FREE DSL IF YOU MAKE 400 EDITS AND BAN 10 SOCKPUPPETS EACH MONTH!

$1,000,000 per year would buy over 8,000 connections. Even more if spread globally. There are a hell of a lot of unemployed graduates in India, China etc.

"Charities" invariably 'do' things like fix cleft palates for free, feed sick children, heal the needy and so on not collate scifi triva, porn and fancruft. That is obsessive–compulsive disorder, not "giving".

[Peter Damian]

Really, the wiki-slaves ought to see their chance and start to organize strike actions demanding better conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=296146542

The anti-union police moved in pretty quickly on that one.

[Eva Destruction]

Prosaic answer is, they make up a bunch of people to admin status until the balance is restored.

Isn't that how Everyking slipped back in?

No, Everyking managed to convince enough people (both on WP and here) that he now understood the problems; then immediately reverted back to Koolaid Mode as soon as the votes were in.

Yes, but it's all being mirrored by other websites. As I've said, when the WP-Monster collapses, unconnected people will be able to take the good content, remove the bad, and create a proper web-encyclopedia. Not guaranteed to happen but likely, given that the source wiki has collapsed by then, and nobody is around to claim any kind of copyright/copyleft over the shreds.

(Nods.) What some people forget is that buried among the three million pieces of crap, there is some genuinely good stuff there. Once en-wiki has finally imploded, someone can either cherry-pick the decent material as a foundation for something better, or (IMO more likely) an IBM or a Google will step in, pick up the Wikipedia name and remaining goodwill, and ruthlessly cull the crap, as Roxio & Best Buy did with the burned-out shell of Napster. In that model, Wikipedia would act as a feeder site from which decent articles would be plucked, moved to a "verified" site, and locked against "anyone can edit" amendment. IIRC a creepy-looking guy with a beard and a dorky guy with glasses have had this idea already.

This post has been edited by Eva Destruction: Sat 20th March 2010, 11:28am

[GlassBeadGame]

I have no idea why anyone would carry on editing for free other than as symptomatic of some mental illness.

Obviously I can't speak for others, but my hope is that wikipedia's decent content will survive wikipedia's inevitable death. Why do it for nothing? Well, why does anyone donate to a charity?

Vanity writing is an odd kind of charity.

[Kelly Martin]

It has produced a massively popular reference site, hasn't it? That seems like a pretty good measure of success.

It would be even more popular if you got a picture of a different naked chick with each page load.

Popularity is not a valid measure of success for a reference site.

[taiwopanfob]

Certainly people shouldn't be dogmatic about what constitutes a genuine wiki model.

Even your beloved project says you are bereft of a brain: No true Scotsman.

[Malleus]

I have no idea why anyone would carry on editing for free other than as symptomatic of some mental illness.

Obviously I can't speak for others, but my hope is that wikipedia's decent content will survive wikipedia's inevitable death. Why do it for nothing? Well, why does anyone donate to a charity?

Vanity writing is an odd kind of charity.

Writing anonymously is an odd kind of vanity.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Writing anonymously is an odd kind of vanity.

Ah, but it is not anonymously ... even if you are committed to IP editing. There is a very strong identity association in a Wikipedia account. Look at how they fight bitterly over them and attack each other.

Actually, making it entirely anonymous might even fix many of the problems ... but I still think they are idiots not to demand some kind of compensation.

Even "charity" workers require tools ... and why the inequity of a buy in price of PC and DSL line? Why not dole out a few thousand PCs and internet connections to social demographs that are current missing on the Porno-pedia?

It would cost nothing in comparison to the real world waste of resources going on under the present status quo.

All the power is in the hands of the workers ... and yet they would rather busy themselves on their hamster wheels.