Slashdot Mirror
Is Wikipedia's Popularity Causing Its Decline?
HughPickens.com writes: Researchers Halfaker, Geiger, Morgan, and Riedl have a new paper on the topic of open collaboration systems about how Wikipedia's reaction to its popularity is causing its decline. From the Abstract: "Open collaboration systems like Wikipedia need to maintain a pool of volunteer contributors in order to remain relevant. Wikipedia was created through a tremendous number of contributions by millions of contributors. However, recent research has shown that the number of active contributors in Wikipedia has been declining steadily for years, and suggests that a sharp decline in the retention of newcomers is the cause. This paper presents data that show that several changes the Wikipedia community made to manage quality and consistency in the face of a massive growth in participation have ironically crippled the very growth they were designed to manage. Specifically, the restrictiveness of the encyclopedia's primary quality control mechanism and the algorithmic tools used to reject contributions are implicated as key causes of decreased newcomer retention. Further, the community's formal mechanisms for norm articulation are shown to have calcified against changes – especially changes proposed by newer editors."
What the hell?
Wikipedia's asshole editors are causing its decline. It has been going on for a long time.
It's the editing cabals that are causing the decline. No new user will put up with that kind of bullshit and stick around.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
...when a simple (small, perfectly accurate, in accordance with the guidelines) edit I did to clarify a definition apparently warranted no less than 3 separate "warnings" about it; I could only conclude that they didn't, in fact, wanted contributions.
AC comments get piped to
Most organizations when they start there is rapid growth, for Wikipedia, there is a lot of information to be loaded in and maintained. Now for the most part a lot of this information is in, and may be taking minor edits or changes for most articles. Many things do not have new insights or new discoveries in generations. So the bulk of the articles don't need to be updated with latest and greatest, because they are already there.
So a decline in contributions is expected as it is now one of the great repositories of information.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
There is another point to consider: at the beginning, there was a lot to do, including easy stuff. You only had to know well a subject and be the first to write the article. Nowadays, almost everything is already written. To make a significant contribution, you would have to be an expert on an obscure topic.
I tried to make some corrections to some pages a few years back...you guessed it - totally reverted almost instantly! No recourse or reason, totally turned me off trying to help...
Now some may argue that this is part of an effort to keep out slanted/paid content, but that ship has sailed, and the interests that can afford to pay editors to push articles a certain way have the power and funding to push through the curmudgeons. The current attitude actually only serves those interests, as small, independent editors are more likely to get discouraged and leave.
Mr. Wales doesn't care though, as long as he can do his yearly beg for money dance all is good in his world.
Silence is a state of mime.
Go ahead and try to make a contribution to a Wikipedia article.
Watch as it's reverted within minutes by the veteran editor who is babysitting that article.
Go ahead and try and cite sources when trying to add something.
Watch as your sources are labeled as biased or not trustworthy.
Wikipedia is a nepotism-fueled hellhole. Truth doesn't matter, only "verifiability". And "verifiability" is entirely subjective depending on the editor you're fighting against. You'll see sources like Buzzfeed considered higher-priority than official sources, if the editor feels like it. You cannot contribute to Wikipedia. You'll get crushed between the different editing factions, or "projects" as they're officially called.
Is the lack of new contributors to Wikipedia a good thing or a bad thing?
Wikipedia started with 0 pages. Now it has 38 million pages. There are fewer articles to write than their were before, and they have realized that having fandom pages for every character of every new anime series isn't what Wikipedia is for. That restricts the easy-to-write new articles and means new contributors leave because they don't have anything to contribute.
It isn't just the shitty editors, though. It's the shitty editors who are enabled and empowered by the so-called "social justice" movement.
The "social justice" movement is all about exerting control over what others think, believe and express. This is done by any means necessary, including hypocrisy and censorship.
There is a huge overlap between those who support the "social justice" movement and those who participate as editors at Wikipedia. Both draw in the same sort of academically-minded people who can't function within the real world. So they build their bureaucracies in academia and online at places like Wikipedia where they can actively engage in the suppression of others.
These are the people who will manipulate Wikipedia articles to match the narrative that they want to dictate. These are the people who will suppress any sort of original thought. These are the sort of people who claim to be "tolerant", while practicing what is an extreme form of intolerance. These are the sorts of people who will mislabel their opponents as "racists" or "sexists" or "intolerant" or "bullies", even when that's clearly not the case.
The awful editing at Wikipedia is just a symptom of the "social justice" disease that affects society today.
...suggests that a sharp decline in the retention of newcomers is the cause....
That's the symptom.
In order to solve the problem, go after the causes, not the symptoms.
.
The reason for the sharp decline in retention of newcomers is the way their edits are treated. Fix that and you'll have more contributors.
After having four new pages in a row deleted that had four or more citations each, I gave up. One of the pages was for my uncle who was nominated for a grammy and has two platinum records, but his page was deleted for not being "notable."
Totally wrong, because the right of not being micro-offended should more directly point at the editors, not the new contributors. In fact, if Wikipedia doesn't want to become completely irrelevant it will need to recognize that new folks would probably only go to the trouble of trying to add or change content, if there was a problem with the existing content. The main problem with Wikipedia is that it is too strongly founded with the idea of being a meta-encyclopedia and to not allow the exposition of independent research.
Less is more.
I still remember the very day that Wikipedia's homepage strictly stated "DON'T POST THIS ON SLASHDOT", which of course I found through Slashdot. Back when the site first launched, that very first day. For the first couple of years, I contributed quite a bit, but don't really do much of that ever anymore. Why?
It is the "low hanging fruit" problem: http://www.urbandictionary.com...
Essentially, all of the easy and common knowledge topics have already been covered. We're at the point now where only two types of edits can really happen. First is highly specialized knowledge, so yes, only a fraction of the community can do that properly. The second is new and emerging ideas, which is generally also highly specialized knowledge that has yet to become common knowledge, so again a very small subset of people who can contribute.
If anything, this isn't a problem. It means they've achieved a very significant goal. They have a huge percentage of human factual knowledge all in one place.
i believe wikipedia's own "humorous" article on WikiSpeak explains a lot about the issues it's having.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
"Wikipedia has changed from “the encyclopedia that anyone can edit” to “the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes him or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit”
The former turned out to be a monumentally bad idea, creating a space filled with weird conspiracy editors, tendentious axe-grinding, automated submission systems, random drive-by vandalism, massive amount of astroturfing, and general trolling. Hence, the latter.
It's not a social club, it's a mission-driven org. A lot of people are not suitable for participation, and they'll get weeded out. Others just have knowledge that's very common and don't want to do boring stuff. How many people does the project need? How many can it productively use? I don't think the answer is everyone on the planet.
Doesn't mean that some of the other criticisms are not also right.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
(Specifically I put in a line on every single element indicating how the majority of that element is believed to have been created - which stage of a star's life cycle creates each element. One sentence per element and all those changes were deleted by idiots refusing to add a tiny bit more information that is known and accepted science).
If I ever saw a set of edits that rated, at a minimum, "citation needed", that's it.
Each of those assertions should, imho, be supported by a reference to the research, or at least published and academically well-respected theorizing, that generated it.
You got that list from somewhere. Tell the reader where. (Then other editors can check it out and, if there is a better reference, add or change it, and if a claim is bogus, correct it.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Fortunately, sources are listed on Wikipedia.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Let me cancel out the comments like "Heck, just try editing wikipedia! Everything I post is reverted instantly!" by posting my experience.
I edit Wikipedia maybe once every few months. None of my edits have ever been reverted or debated. I've anonymously edited things I know about like the article on sorting algorithms. I've edited things I know nothing about, like the article on depth charges. In the latter cases, I was usually reading the article and misunderstood something, so I read more elsewhere, then went back to reword or clarify the section that was unclear. I've fixed citations and spelling errors randomly. No complaints, reverts, or edit wars.
Given the rather... opinionated... Slashdot culture, I would love to know what articles people are editing that cause flame wars. Because I just don't see it
Pretty much all my edits have stuck so far as I can tell, or at least not been reverted per se, other than one which was briefly (somewhat aggressively) queried then reinstated.
I make a mixture of micro (eg typo), and more substantive corrections/additions.
I have no axe to grind: maybe that helps?
Rgds
Damon
http://m.earth.org.uk/
Can any of the people who have anecdotes about asshole editor grievances please actually post some links? Seriously, I don't think you a lying, give us a chance to overthrow the assholes with actual evidence.
Want to see what scojus thought control looks like on wikipedia?
MGTOW page has been deleted all the time, because the scojus feminists believe it shouldn't be included, and since they only need a few editors to vote "delete" it gets removed.
This is AFTER it had tons of negative updates added, just view the talk page, its a damn warzone.
Here is it before http://i.imgur.com/Nni5Z13.jpg
And after http://i.imgur.com/MQ89wYO.jpg
This is why I will never donate a cent, and actively remind people of their censorship.