9 ms·

Wikis in general will be a part of human culture until, more or less, the end of time... but Wikipedia specifically feels like it's already begun a slow decline

by zyxley 10y ago

Wikis in general will be a part of human culture until, more or less, the end of time... but Wikipedia specifically feels like it's already begun a slow decline of bikeshedding, endless reverts, and territory claims by predatory editors.

astrobe_ 10y ago
If it is so one should move to a git/fork/pull request model instead?
teh_klev 10y ago
What I find frustrating are that things like this are permitted to happen by editors who've clearly no clue about the subject matter of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chocolatey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio... "Yet another piece of niche software without any evidence of notability." Upon looking up profile of the editor who proposed this deletion we discover: "I am an environmentalist, scientist and naturalist retired from a career spent working for the UK Government. By training I am an aquatic biologist" Absolutely no mention of any knowledge or expertise about the Microsoft development ecosystem, so how would they know anything about the notability of Chocolatey or whether the references are reliable or notable. I created the original NuGet article and got the go ahead to publish it from an experienced wikipedian. A few months later, despite being reasonably well fleshed out, a different editor trots by and sticks a "I'll delete this page because I don't think its notable enough" at the top. My problem is that I don't have the time or energy to jump through their bizarre argumentative hoops to challenge these kinds of things. It happens all the time. I've had two or three wikipedia articles bookmarked only to return some months later to discover they're gone because in the limited opinion of one or two editors the subject matter is not notable. I have since given up contributing time and money to wikipedia. Fuck them.
- Symbiote 10y ago
  Was the editor wrong? The page on Chocolatey seems fine as a section on NuGet. Wikipedia is not a wiki specialised in software, so it seems reasonable enough that notability is considered in general terms.
  - elcapitan 10y ago
    That discussion (exclusionism vs inclusionism, i.e. making more decisions to exclude stuff that is below a threshold (as in space-limited traditional encyclopedias) vs letting as much in as people care about) is probably also as old as Wikipedia. The German Wikipedia tends to be relatively exclusionist, while I always found the English one more inclusionist. I almost completely abandoned using the German one for this reason and usually go straight to the English version of articles. I also don't want to spend time arguing with the bureaucratic caste what belongs there and what not, I'm happy to find more content in the English version.
- snori74 10y ago
  So? The article you created lives on, it simply had a note about "dubious notability" for a year. That is a prompt to you - or anyone else that cares - to add references to reliable sources that demonstrate that it is notable.
- cooper12 10y ago
  Wikipedia is written by amateurs and enthusiasts, credentials don't hold any weight compared to published sources. [0] You can't verify what's in someone's head, but you can do that for published information. Every now and then you'll hear about how "experts are scum" [1] on Wikipedia, but that comes from a lack of understanding of how it functions. Experts are more than welcome to contribute, as long as they back up their statements with sources. (One would expect academics to embrace this the most) About notability, Wikipedia's concept of notability [2] is quite different from what the average person might think it to be. Notability has nothing to do with popularity or usefulness, but rather significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. This way, you know you can write a verifiable [3] and comprehensive article on something without resorting to original research. [4] (To put it another way: pulling things out of your ass) While to you as a programmer, Chocately might seem to be one of the most essential things on the planet, to nearly every other person and publisher, it's nothing special. Have books been written on it? Has it received widespread coverage in the news? Would you expect to see it in a real encyclopedia? What is its actual impact and userbase? That is what notability is about, not because you personally find something important. Lastly, you often hear people complaining about other articles of the same type or more esoteric existing,[5] like Homebrew having an article [6] while Chocolatey doesn't. That doesn't mean those articles won't be deleted either, Wikipedia is entirely run by volunteers and the process focuses on an individual article's merits at a time. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_credentials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_credentia... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SCUM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SCUM [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrew_(package_management_software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrew_(package_management_s...
atdt 10y ago
This claim is nearly as old as Wikipedia itself, and it is mostly false. There are over five million articles on English Wikipedia, and approximately 10,000 highly active editors (editors who make 25 or more edits a month). There is too much territory and too few claimants for your description to be true. I don't know what motivates people to repeat this trope, when it is simply untrue. I think it stems from the fact that many people expect editing Wikipedia to be easier than it is. It is in fact quite hard. Some of the difficulty is essential (writing good, well-sourced expository prose is challenging) and some of it is inessential, the result of technical and social debt. But most worthwhile things are difficult, and on balance, the rewards of editing Wikipedia are quite large in comparison to the effort required. You can go from a complete novice to a lasting (small) contribution to the project of civilization in an afternoon. You can't same the same for playing an instrument! And it can be hugely satisfying, really. Try it!
- quanticle 10y ago
  The claim may be as old as Wikipedia itself, but it is true nonetheless. A study [1] performed using Wikipedia's own numbers showed that the Wikipedia community is in serious trouble. To quote the paper, "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." To wit, there may be 10,000 active editors now, but there were 56,000 active editors in 2007. That's a nearly 80% decline in the number of active editors. That's not exactly what I would call a sign of a healthy community. The paper goes on to suggest that the reason for the active editors leaving is exactly what zyxley proposed. The amount of work needed to make an edit stick has grown to be an impossibly large burden for all but the most dedicated of volunteers. Even the terminology used by Wikipedians is opaque. Wikipedia has evolved its own legalese-like jargon to describe the actions that new editors can or cannot take. While that may be a fine shorthand for administrators to discuss policies amongst themselves, it is a problem when a new contributor is told that their edit doesn't meet "WP:V" or their new article was rejected because it didn't meet "WP:N". [1] http://abs.sagepub.com/content/57/5/664 http://abs.sagepub.com/content/57/5/664
  - 10y ago

by zyxley 10y ago

astrobe_ 10y ago

If it is so one should move to a git/fork/pull request model instead?

teh_klev 10y ago

What I find frustrating are that things like this are permitted to happen by editors who've clearly no clue about the subject matter of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chocolatey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio... "Yet another piece of niche software without any evidence of notability." Upon looking up profile of the editor who proposed this deletion we discover: "I am an environmentalist, scientist and naturalist retired from a career spent working for the UK Government. By training I am an aquatic biologist" Absolutely no mention of any knowledge or expertise about the Microsoft development ecosystem, so how would they know anything about the notability of Chocolatey or whether the references are reliable or notable. I created the original NuGet article and got the go ahead to publish it from an experienced wikipedian. A few months later, despite being reasonably well fleshed out, a different editor trots by and sticks a "I'll delete this page because I don't think its notable enough" at the top. My problem is that I don't have the time or energy to jump through their bizarre argumentative hoops to challenge these kinds of things. It happens all the time. I've had two or three wikipedia articles bookmarked only to return some months later to discover they're gone because in the limited opinion of one or two editors the subject matter is not notable. I have since given up contributing time and money to wikipedia. Fuck them.

Symbiote 10y ago
Was the editor wrong? The page on Chocolatey seems fine as a section on NuGet. Wikipedia is not a wiki specialised in software, so it seems reasonable enough that notability is considered in general terms.
- elcapitan 10y ago
  That discussion (exclusionism vs inclusionism, i.e. making more decisions to exclude stuff that is below a threshold (as in space-limited traditional encyclopedias) vs letting as much in as people care about) is probably also as old as Wikipedia. The German Wikipedia tends to be relatively exclusionist, while I always found the English one more inclusionist. I almost completely abandoned using the German one for this reason and usually go straight to the English version of articles. I also don't want to spend time arguing with the bureaucratic caste what belongs there and what not, I'm happy to find more content in the English version.
snori74 10y ago
So? The article you created lives on, it simply had a note about "dubious notability" for a year. That is a prompt to you - or anyone else that cares - to add references to reliable sources that demonstrate that it is notable.
cooper12 10y ago
Wikipedia is written by amateurs and enthusiasts, credentials don't hold any weight compared to published sources. [0] You can't verify what's in someone's head, but you can do that for published information. Every now and then you'll hear about how "experts are scum" [1] on Wikipedia, but that comes from a lack of understanding of how it functions. Experts are more than welcome to contribute, as long as they back up their statements with sources. (One would expect academics to embrace this the most) About notability, Wikipedia's concept of notability [2] is quite different from what the average person might think it to be. Notability has nothing to do with popularity or usefulness, but rather significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. This way, you know you can write a verifiable [3] and comprehensive article on something without resorting to original research. [4] (To put it another way: pulling things out of your ass) While to you as a programmer, Chocately might seem to be one of the most essential things on the planet, to nearly every other person and publisher, it's nothing special. Have books been written on it? Has it received widespread coverage in the news? Would you expect to see it in a real encyclopedia? What is its actual impact and userbase? That is what notability is about, not because you personally find something important. Lastly, you often hear people complaining about other articles of the same type or more esoteric existing,[5] like Homebrew having an article [6] while Chocolatey doesn't. That doesn't mean those articles won't be deleted either, Wikipedia is entirely run by volunteers and the process focuses on an individual article's merits at a time. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_credentials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_credentia... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SCUM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SCUM [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrew_(package_management_software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrew_(package_management_s...

atdt 10y ago

This claim is nearly as old as Wikipedia itself, and it is mostly false. There are over five million articles on English Wikipedia, and approximately 10,000 highly active editors (editors who make 25 or more edits a month). There is too much territory and too few claimants for your description to be true. I don't know what motivates people to repeat this trope, when it is simply untrue. I think it stems from the fact that many people expect editing Wikipedia to be easier than it is. It is in fact quite hard. Some of the difficulty is essential (writing good, well-sourced expository prose is challenging) and some of it is inessential, the result of technical and social debt. But most worthwhile things are difficult, and on balance, the rewards of editing Wikipedia are quite large in comparison to the effort required. You can go from a complete novice to a lasting (small) contribution to the project of civilization in an afternoon. You can't same the same for playing an instrument! And it can be hugely satisfying, really. Try it!

quanticle 10y ago
The claim may be as old as Wikipedia itself, but it is true nonetheless. A study [1] performed using Wikipedia's own numbers showed that the Wikipedia community is in serious trouble. To quote the paper, "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." To wit, there may be 10,000 active editors now, but there were 56,000 active editors in 2007. That's a nearly 80% decline in the number of active editors. That's not exactly what I would call a sign of a healthy community. The paper goes on to suggest that the reason for the active editors leaving is exactly what zyxley proposed. The amount of work needed to make an edit stick has grown to be an impossibly large burden for all but the most dedicated of volunteers. Even the terminology used by Wikipedians is opaque. Wikipedia has evolved its own legalese-like jargon to describe the actions that new editors can or cannot take. While that may be a fine shorthand for administrators to discuss policies amongst themselves, it is a problem when a new contributor is told that their edit doesn't meet "WP:V" or their new article was rejected because it didn't meet "WP:N". [1] http://abs.sagepub.com/content/57/5/664 http://abs.sagepub.com/content/57/5/664
- 10y ago