4 ms·

How is this related to the article? You seem to be talking about public perception of wikipedia while the article mainly focuses on the falling number of active

How is this related to the article? You seem to be talking about public perception of wikipedia while the article mainly focuses on the falling number of active editors.

mangeletti 11y ago
I'm suggesting that there hasn't been as much of a decline in community as there has been a decline in the available encyclopedia-relevant information left in the world that isn't already published on Wikipedia. Also, the public perception is related to the drop of users and vice versa. There has been a lot of negative press lately, specifically related to problems in the community.
- placeybordeaux 11y ago
  The decline in number of editors seems to have started at 2007 given figure 1. I wouldn't tie the amount of negative press to the decline in editors. The point about there being less new stuff to write about seems apt, what do you think about the counter points that the article had? "First, as noted above, the vast majority of articles in Wikipedia are still below community standards for “good” articles. Second, underrepresented groups still find it challenging to join. For instance, one study found that only 9% of edits are made by female editors, and that articles of particular interest to women are shorter than articles of interest to men (Lam, 2011). Until editors are representative of the population of potential contributors, it is difficult to argue that the socialization practices are sufficiently effective."
  - lawpoop 11y ago
    Not OP, but 1. Isn't this a moving target? In the beginning, all you had to do was throw up text; standards evolved (and probably continue to, I don't follow it), and now you have to cite references, adhere to standards, etc. As more articles are reviewed, more probably "become" substandard. 2. Is this really a decline issue? I guess it is if you are considering decline not as failure to maintain but failure to grow.
    - Retric 11y ago
      I contributed to several Wikipedia articles over the years (~50-100). It's gotten to the point where it's pointless to improve even terrible articles like stubs as basically everything is automatically reversed. At best a mod may decide to add your content back, which means at this point it's basically stopped being a public wiki. Which is fine, IMO they should just change the name to Webpedia or something if they don't want new edits. PS: As to being 'full' they have 2.7 million stubs, that's a lot of missing content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics
      - dajohnson89 11y ago
        Just curious, why are your edits auto-reversed? That's very discouraging to hear.
        JimmyM 11y ago
        Just to say that this is not my experience. Have made highly contentious edits and created entirely new articles on topics from Hoplomachus through Corpse Paint to planning law in the UK. None of my good edits have been reverted, but some of my poor edits have been manually reverted after review by a human editor.
        DanBC 11y ago
        For a whie there were some wikiprojects (Vandal Patrol; Rollback; twinkle) and some of the people involved were very aggressive in making reverts. Those problems were recognised and so things are a bit better now, but still.
      - Spooky23 11y ago
        It's a shame, but any public forum seems to degenerate to this point. Stack exchange is another great example... The bureaucracy that emerges distracts from the original mission.
        reitanqild 11y ago
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - ddingus 11y ago
    I wanted to join and contribute to some niches I have considerable value to add. Was onerous enough that I quickly found other things to do with my time.
- andrepd 11y ago
  But the article addresses precisely that. In fact, only less than 10% of the core 1000 articles are deemed good quality. So that point is moot.
- tamana 11y ago
  > There has been a lot of negative press lately, In am extremely small geek bubble. Your non-HN/Reddit neighbors aren't aware of such press.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
GavinMcG 11y ago
I read it as a criticism of the title - Wikipedia facing governance issues doesn't amount to a "fall".
DINKDINK 11y ago
What sort of shape would you expect from the number of active editors? I'd imagine an S-curve for editors. A few, early adopters in the beginning, then a surge of editors filling in the bulk of articles, then after the majority of articles have been written, a slow decline of need for editors. I'd imagine the remaining work to be completed would be editorial defense of existing articles and the new amount of articles generated by current events/technology/politics.
Alupis 11y ago
> How is this related to the article? You seem to be talking about public perception of wikipedia while the article mainly focuses on the falling number of active editors. Well, in fairness, the declining number of active editors is likely linked to the public perception of Wikipedia. Teachers and professors hound into students Wikipedia is not for academic use and is full of nonsense and other wrong information. Most of the time, this is not true. We would be better off teaching students Wikipedia isn't an appropriate source to cite, but rather a great research tool which links to it's proper sources, which you may cite. The stigma the education system has built up around Wikipedia is surely effecting the number of people contributing to it.
- tamana 11y ago
  educators have always hated everything new, and encyclopedia had never been a valid source for a research paper. That has nothing to do with wikipedia

How is this related to the article? You seem to be talking about public perception of wikipedia while the article mainly focuses on the falling number of active editors.

mangeletti 11y ago

I'm suggesting that there hasn't been as much of a decline in community as there has been a decline in the available encyclopedia-relevant information left in the world that isn't already published on Wikipedia. Also, the public perception is related to the drop of users and vice versa. There has been a lot of negative press lately, specifically related to problems in the community.

placeybordeaux 11y ago
The decline in number of editors seems to have started at 2007 given figure 1. I wouldn't tie the amount of negative press to the decline in editors. The point about there being less new stuff to write about seems apt, what do you think about the counter points that the article had? "First, as noted above, the vast majority of articles in Wikipedia are still below community standards for “good” articles. Second, underrepresented groups still find it challenging to join. For instance, one study found that only 9% of edits are made by female editors, and that articles of particular interest to women are shorter than articles of interest to men (Lam, 2011). Until editors are representative of the population of potential contributors, it is difficult to argue that the socialization practices are sufficiently effective."
- lawpoop 11y ago
  Not OP, but 1. Isn't this a moving target? In the beginning, all you had to do was throw up text; standards evolved (and probably continue to, I don't follow it), and now you have to cite references, adhere to standards, etc. As more articles are reviewed, more probably "become" substandard. 2. Is this really a decline issue? I guess it is if you are considering decline not as failure to maintain but failure to grow.
  - Retric 11y ago
    I contributed to several Wikipedia articles over the years (~50-100). It's gotten to the point where it's pointless to improve even terrible articles like stubs as basically everything is automatically reversed. At best a mod may decide to add your content back, which means at this point it's basically stopped being a public wiki. Which is fine, IMO they should just change the name to Webpedia or something if they don't want new edits. PS: As to being 'full' they have 2.7 million stubs, that's a lot of missing content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics
    - dajohnson89 11y ago
      Just curious, why are your edits auto-reversed? That's very discouraging to hear.
      - JimmyM 11y ago
        Just to say that this is not my experience. Have made highly contentious edits and created entirely new articles on topics from Hoplomachus through Corpse Paint to planning law in the UK. None of my good edits have been reverted, but some of my poor edits have been manually reverted after review by a human editor.
      - DanBC 11y ago
        For a whie there were some wikiprojects (Vandal Patrol; Rollback; twinkle) and some of the people involved were very aggressive in making reverts. Those problems were recognised and so things are a bit better now, but still.
    - Spooky23 11y ago
      It's a shame, but any public forum seems to degenerate to this point. Stack exchange is another great example... The bureaucracy that emerges distracts from the original mission.
      - reitanqild 11y ago
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- ddingus 11y ago
  I wanted to join and contribute to some niches I have considerable value to add. Was onerous enough that I quickly found other things to do with my time.
andrepd 11y ago
But the article addresses precisely that. In fact, only less than 10% of the core 1000 articles are deemed good quality. So that point is moot.
tamana 11y ago
> There has been a lot of negative press lately, In am extremely small geek bubble. Your non-HN/Reddit neighbors aren't aware of such press.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

GavinMcG 11y ago

I read it as a criticism of the title - Wikipedia facing governance issues doesn't amount to a "fall".

DINKDINK 11y ago

What sort of shape would you expect from the number of active editors? I'd imagine an S-curve for editors. A few, early adopters in the beginning, then a surge of editors filling in the bulk of articles, then after the majority of articles have been written, a slow decline of need for editors. I'd imagine the remaining work to be completed would be editorial defense of existing articles and the new amount of articles generated by current events/technology/politics.

Alupis 11y ago

> How is this related to the article? You seem to be talking about public perception of wikipedia while the article mainly focuses on the falling number of active editors. Well, in fairness, the declining number of active editors is likely linked to the public perception of Wikipedia. Teachers and professors hound into students Wikipedia is not for academic use and is full of nonsense and other wrong information. Most of the time, this is not true. We would be better off teaching students Wikipedia isn't an appropriate source to cite, but rather a great research tool which links to it's proper sources, which you may cite. The stigma the education system has built up around Wikipedia is surely effecting the number of people contributing to it.

tamana 11y ago
educators have always hated everything new, and encyclopedia had never been a valid source for a research paper. That has nothing to do with wikipedia