4 ms·
> Maybe there's no cost to a page sitting on Wikipedia describing, like, some guy's special attack from Naruto. There is a cost, but it's measured in hours of
by CharlesColeman 7y ago
> Maybe there's no cost to a page sitting on Wikipedia describing, like, some guy's special attack from Naruto.
There is a cost, but it's measured in hours of maintenance labor not bytes of storage.
If Wikipedia wants to maintain a semblance of accuracy [1] in the face of declining participation, it needs to concentrate its labor resources rather than spread them out.
[1] which IMHO is vital given its unwise prestige as arbiter or truth
- sgift 7y agoSince Wikipedias concentration of labor itself is a source of declining participation[1] it's doubtful that continuing this behavior will result in something else than a death spiral with even fewer people ready to do the work, more concentration, even fewer .. and so on. [1] Among other reasons, more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_is_Wikipedia_losing_contributors_-_Thinking_about_remedies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_is_Wikipedia_los...
- CharlesColeman 7y ago> Since Wikipedias concentration of labor itself is a source of declining participation[1] it's doubtful that continuing this behavior will result in something else than a death spiral I'm not as interested in the viability of Wikipedia's culture than the reliability of Wikipedia as a resource given its prominence. I'd take a dead Wikipedia over one that's lively and fun but full of crap and poorly-checked influence attempts. It's never going to recapture its halcyon days, so it's going to have to evolve with the times in more ways than one.