6 ms·

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 hig

by 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
- GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
  Perhaps it indicates a decline in the availability of low hanging fruit. Because the easiest and most common edits have been done, fewer new edits are needed, leading to an overall decline in the number of editors without necessarily indicating a decline in general.
  - quanticle 10y ago
    The paper examines that hypothesis and rejects it, noting that while Wikipedia's coverage of certain topics is very good, especially when it comes to math and the sciences, Wikipedia's articles on subjects in the humanities tend to be both quite a bit shorter and have fewer edits than those in the "hard" sciences. There is still plenty of low-hanging fruit left, as shown by Emily Temple-Wood's cataloging of women scientists [1]. [1]: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-35787730 http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-35787730
Tomte 10y ago
What makes people repeat it? Personal experience. I have experienced first-hand how my edit (purely factual corrections, with sources) were reverted by an editor who has edited most of the lemma for most of the time, just because it is "his" lemma.
- Symbiote 10y ago
  Few people back up these assertions with links to their reverted changes. Can you?
  - jl6 10y ago
    I've certainly seen edit-war victims post links to their dispute, and most of the time they are just bitter that their poor quality contribution got called out.
  - Tomte 10y ago
    Yes, I can. But I won't. First, it's none of your business. Second, you're simply combative, not genuinely interested in the case. There are many many people in these discussions who post links to their specific case (contrary to your statement), that should be enough to see the problem. My specific problem doesn'tr add anything.
- TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
  If you disagree with the editor, you can revert their reversions with justifications and bring it to attention on the talk page, though.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    But that's the point. Here we're talking about a good edit. If someone makes a good edit they shouldn't need to defend it - other editors should see it's good and defend it themselves. By asking people to defend their edits on the talk page you're just saying that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anybody with enough time can edit.
ars 10y ago
As a victim of such things, it is mostly true, not false. I've mostly given up on editing wikipedia because it's just too annoying to deal with. Your numbers area meaningless because most articles are ignored, tiny, and full of spam, it's the higher profile articles that are patrolled. The problem in a nutshell is this: The less qualified someone is to edit wikipedia the more time they tend to have to edit on it. The people who actually know the subject, have little time on their hands to edit things, and no desire to waste it. To fix it: They should make a rule: It's forbidden to simply remove things, instead if you want something removed or changed you have to actively research the subject first, and attempt to help make the edit good. Or show that it's incorrect. Right now all the timewasters simply remove edits, instead they should fix them.
- DanBC 10y ago
  > They should make a rule: It's forbidden to simply remove things, instead if you want something removed or changed you have to actively research the subject first, and attempt to help make the edit good. Or show that it's incorrect. [citation needed] was a terrible creation. It made it much easier for people to just tag the bits of articles that they disagree with. Instead they should spend some time trying to find citations.
  - chris_wot 10y ago
    That was never the point of [citation needed]. I created that because it was impossible to remove info without a massive revert war. It was meant to encourage sourcing reliable material that backs up the text, it was certainly never intended to allow text to remain without a citation forever. I'd encourage those who add the tag and who find that even after discussion (or if discussion is totally ignored!) none is provided that they remove the material. They just need to use commonsense to work out a reasonable timeframes.
    - DanBC 10y ago
      You still end up in a revert war. Usually with a 14 year old using automated tools who makes thousands of stupid pointless edits per week, without adding anything (such as citations) of value.

by atdt 10y ago

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

GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
Perhaps it indicates a decline in the availability of low hanging fruit. Because the easiest and most common edits have been done, fewer new edits are needed, leading to an overall decline in the number of editors without necessarily indicating a decline in general.
- quanticle 10y ago
  The paper examines that hypothesis and rejects it, noting that while Wikipedia's coverage of certain topics is very good, especially when it comes to math and the sciences, Wikipedia's articles on subjects in the humanities tend to be both quite a bit shorter and have fewer edits than those in the "hard" sciences. There is still plenty of low-hanging fruit left, as shown by Emily Temple-Wood's cataloging of women scientists [1]. [1]: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-35787730 http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-35787730

Tomte 10y ago

What makes people repeat it? Personal experience. I have experienced first-hand how my edit (purely factual corrections, with sources) were reverted by an editor who has edited most of the lemma for most of the time, just because it is "his" lemma.

Symbiote 10y ago
Few people back up these assertions with links to their reverted changes. Can you?
- jl6 10y ago
  I've certainly seen edit-war victims post links to their dispute, and most of the time they are just bitter that their poor quality contribution got called out.
- Tomte 10y ago
  Yes, I can. But I won't. First, it's none of your business. Second, you're simply combative, not genuinely interested in the case. There are many many people in these discussions who post links to their specific case (contrary to your statement), that should be enough to see the problem. My specific problem doesn'tr add anything.
TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
If you disagree with the editor, you can revert their reversions with justifications and bring it to attention on the talk page, though.
- DanBC 10y ago
  But that's the point. Here we're talking about a good edit. If someone makes a good edit they shouldn't need to defend it - other editors should see it's good and defend it themselves. By asking people to defend their edits on the talk page you're just saying that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anybody with enough time can edit.

ars 10y ago

As a victim of such things, it is mostly true, not false. I've mostly given up on editing wikipedia because it's just too annoying to deal with. Your numbers area meaningless because most articles are ignored, tiny, and full of spam, it's the higher profile articles that are patrolled. The problem in a nutshell is this: The less qualified someone is to edit wikipedia the more time they tend to have to edit on it. The people who actually know the subject, have little time on their hands to edit things, and no desire to waste it. To fix it: They should make a rule: It's forbidden to simply remove things, instead if you want something removed or changed you have to actively research the subject first, and attempt to help make the edit good. Or show that it's incorrect. Right now all the timewasters simply remove edits, instead they should fix them.

DanBC 10y ago
> They should make a rule: It's forbidden to simply remove things, instead if you want something removed or changed you have to actively research the subject first, and attempt to help make the edit good. Or show that it's incorrect. [citation needed] was a terrible creation. It made it much easier for people to just tag the bits of articles that they disagree with. Instead they should spend some time trying to find citations.
- chris_wot 10y ago
  That was never the point of [citation needed]. I created that because it was impossible to remove info without a massive revert war. It was meant to encourage sourcing reliable material that backs up the text, it was certainly never intended to allow text to remain without a citation forever. I'd encourage those who add the tag and who find that even after discussion (or if discussion is totally ignored!) none is provided that they remove the material. They just need to use commonsense to work out a reasonable timeframes.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    You still end up in a revert war. Usually with a 14 year old using automated tools who makes thousands of stupid pointless edits per week, without adding anything (such as citations) of value.