Wikipedia life expectancy poll Options

[Emperor]

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.

[Mister Die]

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.

[Bottled_Spider]

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.

[Fusion]

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.

[Eppur si muove]

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.

[Heat]

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

Can this place be revived? How?

[Web Fred]

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.

[Detective]

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! What's the matter with me?

[mbz1]

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

[Fusion]

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)?

[FightingMac]

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.

[Web Fred]

I don't see many Wikipedia brides being either advertised or requested.