4 ms·
An interesting paper that basically says that the number of editors is declining due to the difficulty in keeping and retaining new users. Any person who has tr
by sparkzilla 11y ago
An interesting paper that basically says that the number of editors is declining due to the difficulty in keeping and retaining new users. Any person who has tried to edit Wikipedia will know that aggressive rule-wielding wikifanatics immediately try to kill newcomer edits using whatever tools they have to hand. But it's important to realize that Wikipedia's ambiguous rules and arbitrary decisions are not a bug, but a feature, giving power to incumbent editors. While most new editors just give up, the ones who do stay on and fight become the same kind of fanatics.
Many people say that the toxic community is the problem, but the community issues IMHO are actually a symptom of poor software design. The wiki's open structure and article-based format, which allows the most powerful groups of editors to "own" pages, gives power to people who are interested in keeping and retaining control, rather than those who are interested in sharing knowledge. The power is centralized in these gatekeepers, leading to all the problems we see on the site.[1] This is also the reason the Gender Gap exists.[2]
The solution is to redesign the software to devolve power from entrenched groups, but this will never happen because there is no leadership, and the people who have the power are the survivors/fanatics that actually like the current system. Because they write the rules they will not give their power up easily.
As for the quality arguments below: without new users and continuous evolution in software development, content presentation, and editorial review processes, the site cannot maintain quality. I believe that it is impossible for any wiki system to maintain a high quality anyway: the amount of time to improve articles to high quality is exponential, while the number of editors and work available is linear. Even in the best circumstances, something has to give. If the number of editors is actually declining then quality problems may also increase exponentially.
[1]http://newslines.org/blog/wikipedias-13-deadly-sins/ http://newslines.org/blog/wikipedias-13-deadly-sins/
[2]http://newslines.org/blog/the-sexists-at-the-top-of-wikipedia/ http://newslines.org/blog/the-sexists-at-the-top-of-wikipedi...
- phicoh 11y agoComparing wikipedia to openstreetmap, it seems to be a community problem, not a software problem. An open structure means that you have to watch what others are doing constantly. But that doesn't explain the huge number of stories where reasonable edits are reverted. That can only happen because the wikipedia (editor) community is ok with that. My conclusion is that wikipedia forgot to redefine itself. Originally, wikipedia was a summary based on existing literature. But pretty soon users took wikipedia way beyond that. Using it to document stuff, instead of summarising stuff documented else where. Most wikis are a tool to collectively create documentation. And somehow wikipedia is stuck in older world, and not what most wikipedia users expect it to be. My conclusion, until the project reforms and allows original content, I won't contribute.