4 ms·
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
by 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 agoNot 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 agoI 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 agoJust curious, why are your edits auto-reversed? That's very discouraging to hear.
- JimmyM 11y agoJust 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 agoFor 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 agoIt'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 agoInterestingly lots of people seem to have a negative view of forums and fear that stack-sites will go the way of the forums if they don't continue their bureaucracy. Yet I cannot remember one technical forum that was as unhelpful as stack-sites sometimes turns into.
- noobermin 11y agoDo you suppose one day, dang will be replaced by a RNN that auto rejects all possible dupes?
- ddingus 11y agoMy experience too
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- ddingus 11y agoI 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.