4 ms·

Doesn't this entirely miss the point? If they froze Wikipedia as it is and it stopped keeping up with the times, it'd be significantly less useful. And consider

Doesn't this entirely miss the point? If they froze Wikipedia as it is and it stopped keeping up with the times, it'd be significantly less useful. And considering that Wikipedia is substantially losing editors and admins, any attempt they can make to bring more in seems appropriate. There is likely a critical mass of volunteers needed - fewer than that and you lose it all. The approach theyve taken to this issue may not be cost effective, but it's absolutely necessary.

oconnore 9y ago
> There is likely a critical mass of volunteers needed - fewer than that and you lose it all. Volunteers... don't cost money. If they were paying people to contribute/edit that would be one thing, but all the money they're spending doesn't contribute to the content on the site at all. And as far as I can tell, mediawiki -- the software platform -- is basically complete. It accomplishes the goal of displaying editable encyclopedia pages at scale.
- brian-armstrong 9y ago
  Volunteers don't cost money, but acquiring and retaining them does. A lot of these events are chances to get WP volunteers to meet and connect in real life, hopefully making WP more tangible and enjoyable to volunteer for. Saying that spending money on volunteer outreach doesn't contribute to site content is just absurd. It's exactly the opposite.
HarryHirsch 9y ago
The admin corps does need some kind of reform - the place is hostile to newcomers, it doesn't use real-world expertise well (in academia we have secretaries to keep the cranks away), competing interests and astroturfing are an ongoing problem, nevermind the internal politics. The Wikipedia Movement stuff that the donations pay for do not address any of these issues meaningfully. The dropping admin and editor count would support this thesis.
- brian-armstrong 9y ago
  We agree there for sure. I don't know how they could combat those issues more effectively, but I wouldn't expect it to be free.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - HarryHirsch 9y ago
    Wikipedia feels very insular, somehow. It's difficult to explain why, but I think it's the strictly enforced anonymity and the insistence that real-world identity does not matter on the site. It all reminds too much of institutional politics in a second-rate undergraduate college. It's not clear how more money can reform the encrusted structures. More volunteers can't be the answer.

oconnore 9y ago

> There is likely a critical mass of volunteers needed - fewer than that and you lose it all. Volunteers... don't cost money. If they were paying people to contribute/edit that would be one thing, but all the money they're spending doesn't contribute to the content on the site at all. And as far as I can tell, mediawiki -- the software platform -- is basically complete. It accomplishes the goal of displaying editable encyclopedia pages at scale.

brian-armstrong 9y ago
Volunteers don't cost money, but acquiring and retaining them does. A lot of these events are chances to get WP volunteers to meet and connect in real life, hopefully making WP more tangible and enjoyable to volunteer for. Saying that spending money on volunteer outreach doesn't contribute to site content is just absurd. It's exactly the opposite.

HarryHirsch 9y ago

The admin corps does need some kind of reform - the place is hostile to newcomers, it doesn't use real-world expertise well (in academia we have secretaries to keep the cranks away), competing interests and astroturfing are an ongoing problem, nevermind the internal politics. The Wikipedia Movement stuff that the donations pay for do not address any of these issues meaningfully. The dropping admin and editor count would support this thesis.

brian-armstrong 9y ago
We agree there for sure. I don't know how they could combat those issues more effectively, but I wouldn't expect it to be free.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- HarryHirsch 9y ago
  Wikipedia feels very insular, somehow. It's difficult to explain why, but I think it's the strictly enforced anonymity and the insistence that real-world identity does not matter on the site. It all reminds too much of institutional politics in a second-rate undergraduate college. It's not clear how more money can reform the encrusted structures. More volunteers can't be the answer.