The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> General Discussion? What's that all about?

This subforum is for general discussion of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. For a glossary of terms frequently used in such discussions, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary. For a glossary of musical terms, see here. Other useful links:

Akahele.orgWikipedia-WatchWikitruthWP:ANWikiEN-L/Foundation-L (mailing lists) • Citizendium forums

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Statistical decline Reported, Long awaited demise of Wikipedia at hand?
nobs
post Wed 10th October 2007, 4:07am
Post #1


#2242 most prolific contributor of out of 1 million+ WP users
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 6:08pm
From: North America
Member No.: 16

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



The Foundation list is in a tizzy. Internal statistics for the English Wikipedia have not been compiled since October 2006. Independent analysis shows the activity of the Wikipedia community appears to have been declining during the last 6 months. New users are off 30%

QUOTE
Having absorbed traffic from all previous contenders, we are running up against an insurmountable wall.... That very traffic that we absorbed is no less than the unwashed masses...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
blissyu2
post Wed 10th October 2007, 4:17am
Post #2


the wookie
*********

Group: On Vacation
Posts: 4,596
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 12:14am
From: Australia
Member No.: 5

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



It also seems that their rate of unproductive edits has climbed to over 20%:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_...sis#Revert_rate
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nobs
post Wed 10th October 2007, 4:47am
Post #3


#2242 most prolific contributor of out of 1 million+ WP users
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 6:08pm
From: North America
Member No.: 16

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Tue 9th October 2007, 10:17pm) *

It also seems that their rate of unproductive edits has climbed to over 20%:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_...sis#Revert_rate

60% of "normal edits" are made by pimply faced Admins. Like that's news. We always knew you had to be a member of the club.

This post has been edited by nobs: Wed 10th October 2007, 4:48am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kato
post Wed 10th October 2007, 5:10am
Post #4


dhd
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined: Fri 29th Dec 2006, 8:39pm
Member No.: 767



QUOTE(nobs @ Wed 10th October 2007, 5:07am) *

The Foundation list is in a tizzy. Internal statistics for the English Wikipedia have not been compiled since October 2006. Independent analysis shows the activity of the Wikipedia community appears to have been declining during the last 6 months. New users are off 30%

This quote from the study is most interesting.

QUOTE(User:Dragons flight/Log analysis)
The rate at which edits were being made to Wikipedia articles appears to have peaked in February to April 2007 and declined since. This decline is unprecedented in Wikipedia's history, which has been marked by nearly exponential growth during much of its history. As discussed below, several other statistics show declines beginning around the same period. Though it may be purely coincidental, this time frame also corresponds to the Essjay controversy appearing in the press.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Wed 10th October 2007, 5:18am
Post #5


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(User:Dragons flight/Log analysis)
Though it may be purely coincidental, this time frame also corresponds to the Essjay controversy appearing in the press.

That's a rather mean thing for Mr. Flight to say, isn't it? I mean, putting aside the plainly obvious fact that Wikipedia is now firmly into the maintenance phase, in which these sort of statistics are predictable and inevitable, there were other things that happened during that timeframe too - like the whole BADSITES brouhaha, Citizendium, and the totally unfair re-banning of User:Blissyu2, each of which probably caused at least 200,000 WP users to quit in disgust and revulsion. By comparison, the Essjay thing was really more of a blip...

Am I wrong? smiling.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
the fieryangel
post Wed 10th October 2007, 8:52am
Post #6


the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined: Tue 21st Nov 2006, 9:49pm
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577



QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 10th October 2007, 5:18am) *

QUOTE(User:Dragons flight/Log analysis)
Though it may be purely coincidental, this time frame also corresponds to the Essjay controversy appearing in the press.

That's a rather mean thing for Mr. Flight to say, isn't it? I mean, putting aside the plainly obvious fact that Wikipedia is now firmly into the maintenance phase, in which these sort of statistics are predictable and inevitable, there were other things that happened during that timeframe too - like the whole BADSITES brouhaha, Citizendium, and the totally unfair re-banning of User:Blissyu2, each of which probably caused at least 200,000 WP users to quit in disgust and revulsion. By comparison, the Essjay thing was really more of a blip...

Am I wrong? smile.gif


hmm, I wonder what happened to ED's stats during the same period? What would it mean if those went up?

Anyway, what did they expect? You try to run the riffraff off and you end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. They could have had armies of academics working for them, but they ran them all off because of their horrible attitude towards editors. They ran the kids off (remember JzG telling a class of school children that they should find another place to host their page?) and they ran quite a few adults off too by either deleting their contributions, making them feel unwelcome and making everybody who didn't understand what a "diff", "NPOV", "COI" and "AGF" was feel like a complete idiot.

Now, they're upset because their stats are going down?

This is surprising?

...Hopefully, the sponsors will see the same stats and will start giving their money to other, more dynamic organisations, rather than this passé clique of basement dwellers....
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guy
post Wed 10th October 2007, 10:08am
Post #7


Postmaster General
*********

Group: Inactive
Posts: 4,294
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 8:52pm
From: London
Member No.: 23



QUOTE(nobs @ Wed 10th October 2007, 5:47am) *

60% of "normal edits" are made by pimply faced Admins.

How do you know what they look like?


QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 10th October 2007, 6:18am) *

there were other things that happened during that timeframe too - like the whole BADSITES brouhaha, Citizendium, and the totally unfair re-banning of User:Blissyu2, each of which probably caused at least 200,000 WP users to quit in disgust and revulsion.

And of course the banning of Poetlister and friends, who were making over 50% of the best edits.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
KamrynMatika
post Wed 10th October 2007, 10:16am
Post #8


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 626
Joined: Sun 24th Jun 2007, 1:59am
Member No.: 1,776



QUOTE(nobs @ Wed 10th October 2007, 5:47am) *

QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Tue 9th October 2007, 10:17pm) *

It also seems that their rate of unproductive edits has climbed to over 20%:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_...sis#Revert_rate

60% of "normal edits" are made by pimply faced Admins. Like that's news. We always knew you had to be a member of the club.


No, 60% of the edits that admins make are 'normal' edits. So 40% of their edits are reverts or have been reverted. Meaning that they edit far less than plain registered users, who have 82% of their edits as 'normal'. (i.e. not reverts or wasn't reverted).

And the graph for their 'decline' is hardly surprising as editing is dropping off around September/October. I think the decline is more likely to be the result of people going back to school/college than abusive admins.

I think the tendency here to focus on the bad side of Wikipedia makes us overestimate the impact that a few abusive admins have. They don't have enough influence to cause the rate of edits per day to drop by around 25,000.

Pay attention to the fact that deletions have gone down vastly in the last month - as admins are mostly college students, this is hardly surprising.

This post has been edited by KamrynMatika: Wed 10th October 2007, 10:23am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JohnA
post Wed 10th October 2007, 10:52am
Post #9


Looking over Winston Smith's shoulder
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,171
Joined: Sun 30th Jul 2006, 9:56pm
Member No.: 313



QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Wed 10th October 2007, 11:16am) *

QUOTE(nobs @ Wed 10th October 2007, 5:47am) *

QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Tue 9th October 2007, 10:17pm) *

It also seems that their rate of unproductive edits has climbed to over 20%:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_...sis#Revert_rate

60% of "normal edits" are made by pimply faced Admins. Like that's news. We always knew you had to be a member of the club.


No, 60% of the edits that admins make are 'normal' edits. So 40% of their edits are reverts or have been reverted. Meaning that they edit far less than plain registered users, who have 82% of their edits as 'normal'. (i.e. not reverts or wasn't reverted).

And the graph for their 'decline' is hardly surprising as editing is dropping off around September/October. I think the decline is more likely to be the result of people going back to school/college than abusive admins.

I think the tendency here to focus on the bad side of Wikipedia makes us overestimate the impact that a few abusive admins have. They don't have enough influence to cause the rate of edits per day to drop by around 25,000.

Pay attention to the fact that deletions have gone down vastly in the last month - as admins are mostly college students, this is hardly surprising.


If you look carefully, the decline began in late February/early March. Perhaps Wikipedia has peaked.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jorge
post Wed 10th October 2007, 12:18pm
Post #10


Postmaster
*******

Group: On Vacation
Posts: 1,910
Joined: Tue 28th Feb 2006, 11:54am
Member No.: 29



QUOTE(guy @ Wed 10th October 2007, 11:08am) *

QUOTE(nobs @ Wed 10th October 2007, 5:47am) *

60% of "normal edits" are made by pimply faced Admins.

How do you know what they look like?

Duh
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guy
post Wed 10th October 2007, 1:01pm
Post #11


Postmaster General
*********

Group: Inactive
Posts: 4,294
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 8:52pm
From: London
Member No.: 23



QUOTE(jorge @ Wed 10th October 2007, 1:18pm) *

No, not a pimple in sight, not even on Jimbo himself.

Oh nearly missed it - my 2,000th post.


This post has been edited by guy: Wed 10th October 2007, 1:10pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jorge
post Wed 10th October 2007, 1:22pm
Post #12


Postmaster
*******

Group: On Vacation
Posts: 1,910
Joined: Tue 28th Feb 2006, 11:54am
Member No.: 29



QUOTE(guy @ Wed 10th October 2007, 2:01pm) *

QUOTE(jorge @ Wed 10th October 2007, 1:18pm) *

No, not a pimple in sight, not even on Jimbo himself.

Oh nearly missed it - my 2,000th post.

The photos are not really detailed enough for pimple analysis.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Wed 10th October 2007, 2:33pm
Post #13


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



QUOTE(jorge @ Wed 10th October 2007, 7:22am) *

QUOTE(guy @ Wed 10th October 2007, 2:01pm) *

QUOTE(jorge @ Wed 10th October 2007, 1:18pm) *

No, not a pimple in sight, not even on Jimbo himself.

Oh nearly missed it - my 2,000th post.

The photos are not really detailed enough for pimple analysis.


No, but they show an impressive array of bad haircuts.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nobs
post Wed 10th October 2007, 6:38pm
Post #14


#2242 most prolific contributor of out of 1 million+ WP users
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 6:08pm
From: North America
Member No.: 16

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(jorge @ Wed 10th October 2007, 6:18am) *
QUOTE(guy @ Wed 10th October 2007, 11:08am) *
QUOTE(nobs @ Wed 10th October 2007, 5:47am) *

60% of "normal edits" are made by pimply faced Admins.

How do you know what they look like?
Duh

From memory, of 1300 Admins, 600 are under 18 (one of which was the surrogate who extended my block). According to Newsmax, a RS, WP:V source,

QUOTE
Aside from Bauder, the average age of an Arbitration Committee member is around 22. The committee, and the 1,000 or so administrators who enforce their rulings, appear to include a disproportionate number of high school and college students.... Jimmy Wales, has explicitly stated that he doesn't make any distinction between the contributions of an Ivy League professor and a bright 16-year-old...
I'm not even gonna try to guide where the discussion goes from here....

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Wed 10th October 2007, 7:07pm
Post #15


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(nobs @ Wed 10th October 2007, 2:38pm) *

I'm not even gonna try to guide where the discussion goes from here....

Well, I'd like to say that shortly after the Essjay scandal cracked, I noted a perceptible decline in financial contributions to the Foundation. I graphed it and everything. Later, I discovered that one huge single-bunch donation (WP:SBD) kind of threw off my numbers. Various Wikipediots were laughing at my entire premise.

"Essjay is just a tiny blip on the radar that will be forgotten in a matter of weeks, if not days," they said. (I paraphrase.)

Oh, how the worm turns now, eh? More data with February 2007 marking a high-water point.

I rest.

Greg

This post has been edited by thekohser: Wed 10th October 2007, 7:09pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nobs
post Wed 10th October 2007, 7:30pm
Post #16


#2242 most prolific contributor of out of 1 million+ WP users
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 6:08pm
From: North America
Member No.: 16

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 10th October 2007, 1:07pm) *

QUOTE(nobs @ Wed 10th October 2007, 2:38pm) *

I'm not even gonna try to guide where the discussion goes from here....

Well, I'd like to say that shortly after the Essjay scandal cracked, I noted a perceptible decline in financial contributions to the Foundation. I graphed it and everything. Later, I discovered that one huge single-bunch donation (WP:SBD) kind of threw off my numbers. Various Wikipediots were laughing at my entire premise.

"Essjay is just a tiny blip on the radar that will be forgotten in a matter of weeks, if not days," they said. (I paraphrase.)

Oh, how the worm turns now, eh? More data with February 2007 marking a high-water point.

I rest.

Greg
Excellent graph. Can I use it for our WP entry at Conservapedia? I'll give you credit with a link. Who should be creditted?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Firsfron of Ronchester
post Sat 13th October 2007, 5:01pm
Post #17


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 442
Joined: Sat 16th Jun 2007, 1:38pm
From: , Location, Location.
Member No.: 1,715

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 10th October 2007, 12:07pm) *

QUOTE(nobs @ Wed 10th October 2007, 2:38pm) *

I'm not even gonna try to guide where the discussion goes from here....

Well, I'd like to say that shortly after the Essjay scandal cracked, I noted a perceptible decline in financial contributions to the Foundation. I graphed it and everything. Later, I discovered that one huge single-bunch donation (WP:SBD) kind of threw off my numbers. Various Wikipediots were laughing at my entire premise.

"Essjay is just a tiny blip on the radar that will be forgotten in a matter of weeks, if not days," they said. (I paraphrase.)

Oh, how the worm turns now, eh? More data with February 2007 marking a high-water point.

I rest.

Greg


Can you update the graph, Greg? It's hard to tell, but it looks like daily donations are back up to over $2,000 a day, with last month being one of the biggest donation periods since Wikipedia started keeping these records. Fundraising link
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Sat 13th October 2007, 6:05pm
Post #18


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



Looks like they got three big ones last month, one of which was from "Anonymous." The other two look like they might be bequests...? Anyway, that tends to throw off the curve.

I sometimes wonder if some of the more dedicated Wikipedians actually lobby their own rich parents/grandparents (assuming they have any) to give or leave money to the WMF... Things like that do happen, though of course it's normally for much more worthy causes like medical research, local orphanages, animal rescue operations, things of that nature.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Mon 15th October 2007, 2:05am
Post #19


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(Firsfron of Ronchester @ Sat 13th October 2007, 1:01pm) *

Can you update the graph, Greg? It's hard to tell, but it looks like daily donations are back up to over $2,000 a day, with last month being one of the biggest donation periods since Wikipedia started keeping these records. Fundraising link

No, I won't update the graph. Reason: the Foundation apparently makes it a habit to "log" large donations whenever the heck they happen to get around to it, even if it means "back-dating" a donation a considerable number of days or even weeks. Being that they don't make their public donation data accurate, I'll make no further attempts to render correct representations of it.

By the way, the reason donations have picked up recently is that they switched on the "Please give us your money" headers when people sign in -- similar to what they did in December 2006-January 2007. So, if you want to make comparisons (with the "is it real, or is it Jimborex?" data), you should be comparing today's donation levels with those we saw, say, in the first few weeks of this year. I believe you'll see that current levels trail the most recent "fund-drive" period.

Greg
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Castle Rock
post Tue 16th October 2007, 3:25am
Post #20


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu 13th Sep 2007, 7:27am
From: Oregon
Member No.: 3,051



QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Wed 10th October 2007, 1:52am) *

hmm, I wonder what happened to ED's stats during the same period? What would it mean if those went up?

Well their Alexa rank has climbed a lot over the past couple of months. I don't think they cater to the same crowd though.

This post has been edited by Castle Rock: Tue 16th October 2007, 3:25am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 13th 12 17, 3:12am