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
> Wikipedia life expectancy poll
Wikipedia Lifespan
How long will Wikipedia last?
10 years [ 9 ] ** [45.00%]
20 years [ 6 ] ** [30.00%]
100 years [ 1 ] ** [5.00%]
1000 years [ 2 ] ** [10.00%]
Other [ 2 ] ** [10.00%]
Total Votes: 20
Guests cannot vote 
Emperor
post Wed 4th April 2012, 2:34am
Post #1


Try spam today!
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,858
Joined: Sat 21st Jul 2007, 4:09pm
Member No.: 2,042



Pretty simple poll. By "lasting" I mean Wikipedia as we know it, as an active wiki with at least hundreds of people working on it every day. I don't mean as a file that some future archeologist will look at as some curiously weird piece of ridiculousness from around 2010.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mister Die
post Wed 4th April 2012, 7:28am
Post #2


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun 29th Jan 2012, 11:32pm
Member No.: 75,644

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



It's possible that in 10 years' time there might be more notable web competition to Wikipedia, but as it stands, with printed encyclopedias being seen as something ye olde great grandfather would read while denouncing the negroes or something, it does seem that it will have to change towards better quality control someday as people will increasingly have to rely on it as the only real "encyclopedic" source for anything.

I think the concept is endearingly bad enough ("let's allow anyone to make encyclopedic articles without any quality control other than being able to cite... whatever") and the initial momentum large enough that Wikipedia is firmly secured in its present position.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Bottled_Spider
post Wed 4th April 2012, 11:04am
Post #3


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 533
Joined: Sun 11th Jan 2009, 8:27pm
From: Pictland
Member No.: 9,708



QUOTE(Emperor @ Wed 4th April 2012, 3:34am) *
Pretty simple poll. By "lasting" I mean Wikipedia as we know it, as an active wiki with at least hundreds of people working on it every day. I don't mean as a file that some future archeologist will look at as some curiously weird piece of ridiculousness from around 2010.

Pretty simple polls require pretty simple answers, so I voted for 20 years. Why not? Perhaps wishing for that will make it so. After all, Wikipedia is a damn fine source of internet entertainment ever since the newsgroups went tits up because of that whole Google thing. And should Wikipedia ever change into an actual encyclopaedia by implementing some of the "reforms" suggested by the optimists then something similar to the old-style combative version will pop up to take its place.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fusion
post Wed 4th April 2012, 8:08pm
Post #4


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue 29th Nov 2011, 12:40pm
Member No.: 71,526



I fear that the influence of Wikipedia will be around for a very long time because so much on the Internet is copied from it. "Facts" invented on it will corrupt many for decades.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Eppur si muove
post Thu 5th April 2012, 7:20pm
Post #5


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 304
Joined: Fri 28th Nov 2008, 10:50pm
Member No.: 9,171



I think that WP has now reached the level of maturity as a project and has seen off enough of the competition that it will be critically examined a lot more than in its next ten years than it was in its first ten years. It will have to reform or face becoming increasingly tarnished in the popular imagination.

Translation software may also improve so that it might come up against competition from other language encyclopedias. Two Chinese projects are already bigger than en.WP in terms of the number of articles. The political censorship over there is an obvious downside but it probably means that there will be a higher proportion of "serious" content as opposed to the porn and other trivia than infest WP. And when the competition between the Chinese projects and Wikipedia spreads to more conservative cultures such as the Arab ones, then WP will have to reform or lose the popularity contest.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Heat
post Fri 6th April 2012, 3:29pm
Post #6


Tenured
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon 5th Mar 2007, 2:46am
Member No.: 1,066



I'm wondering how long WR will survive? *swats at tumbleweed*

Can this place be revived? How?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Web Fred
post Fri 6th April 2012, 4:24pm
Post #7


Pervert & Swinger
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat 13th Feb 2010, 3:25pm
From: Manchester, UK
Member No.: 17,141

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Heat @ Fri 6th April 2012, 4:29pm) *

I'm wondering how long WR will survive? *swats at tumbleweed*

Can this place be revived? How?


It will be revived, just not immediately.

It should be possible to achieve what has gone before but with fewer people.

Over the last few months there's been more heat than light, and as the cull has removed a lot of the heaters theoretically more light should remain.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Detective
post Sat 7th April 2012, 3:11pm
Post #8


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu 9th Dec 2010, 11:17am
Member No.: 35,179



QUOTE(Web Fred @ Fri 6th April 2012, 5:24pm) *

It will be revived, just not immediately.

It should be possible to achieve what has gone before but with fewer people.

Over the last few months there's been more heat than light, and as the cull has removed a lot of the heaters theoretically more light should remain.

This is worrying. I'm largely in agreement with Fred here! wtf.gif What's the matter with me?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Sun 22nd April 2012, 5:19pm
Post #9


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



In many characteristics wikipedia resembles soviet union:

Idea of creating soviet union seemed to be good, implementation of that idea demonstrated it is not so good. The same with wikipedia.

soviet union was a totalitarian regime, in which citizens rights were abused over and over again. wikipedia is a totalitarian regime, in which editors rights are abused over and over again.

soviet union was known for closed tribunals. wikipedia is too.

soviet union persecuted its citizens for criticizing the regime. wikipedia does too.

soviet union took over eastern European countries. wikipedia killed encarta and almost killed Britannica.

soviet union has a special class of privileged elite that was above the law. wikipedia does too.

governance of soviet union heavily relied on lies and deceptions.
governance of wikipedia does too.

Well, eventually soviet union collapsed under its own absurdity although when I lived there I did not believe it ever would . Will the history repeat itself with wikipedia, at least with wikipedia as it is now? I certainly hope it will.

This post has been edited by mbz1: Sun 22nd April 2012, 5:47pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fusion
post Sun 22nd April 2012, 5:42pm
Post #10


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue 29th Nov 2011, 12:40pm
Member No.: 71,526



QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sun 22nd April 2012, 6:19pm) *

Well, eventually soviet union collapsed under its own absurdity although when I lived there I did not believe it ever would . Will the history repeat itself with wikipedia, at least with wikipedia as it is now? I certainly hope it will.

Where is there in Wikipedia a man like Boris Yeltsin (T-H-L-K-D)? hmmm.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
FightingMac
post Sun 22nd April 2012, 5:44pm
Post #11


New Member
*

Group: Contributors
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun 3rd Jul 2011, 4:27pm
Member No.: 58,650

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sun 22nd April 2012, 8:19pm) *

In many characteristics wikipedia resembles soviet union:



Yes, absolutely. Excellent post. For another parallel, especially in regions not unadjacent to bumcracks, I believe we need look no further than the Vatican.

I take issue with one remark though, that the Soviet Union collapsed under its own absurdity. Certainly it did, the absurdity for example of pretending to work and pretending to be paid for it, but nevertheless I like to think that some small degree of enlightenment did play its part as well.

And we can do our bit too. We really can.

Let's take back Wikipedia for the people and by the people and not some bunch of fucknut pedos and their sicko catamites.

Pillar 5 - no rules. No quarter.


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Web Fred
post Sun 22nd April 2012, 6:26pm
Post #12


Pervert & Swinger
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat 13th Feb 2010, 3:25pm
From: Manchester, UK
Member No.: 17,141

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



I don't see many Wikipedia brides being either advertised or requested.
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: 23rd 4 14, 12:37pm