4 ms·

If Jimmy is such an expert on incentives, why are all the long term editors leaving?

WikipediasBad 6y ago
The might be leaving to other newer alternatives like blockchain-based Everipedia.org or Golden.com (which recently raised from a16z).
- calcifer 6y ago
  Thanks for the analysis, I'm sure you're right WikipediasBad. EDIT: Looking at both websites, neither of them seem remotely in the same market as Wikipedia.
  - WikipediasBad 6y ago
    Ah thanks for the downvote, you're very neutral and would make a great Wikipedia contributor. /s How are the two sites not remotely in the same market? They are literally knowledge bases. Albeit, Golden is focusing more on structured data similar to Wikidata.org and Everipedia.org is focusing more on blockchain related content first with the backend using smart contracts/token incentivization.
- ThalesX 6y ago
  I gave Golden a read when it first popped up, but it's backed by VC so I'm not sure how this model goes well with open access to data.
exo762 6y ago
AFAIK The real problem is lack of new blood. Old editors who become masters of wikipedia rules-fu are to blame.
- contingencies 6y ago
  Agreed. I am an old admin driven mad by rules-fu thus contributing less than ever.
  - exo762 6y ago
    Both Wikipedia and StackOverflow have a problem of retaining new contributors. I always had my pet theory on possible solution for this problem, and I wonder what do you think about it. I see it like that. New contributors come to contribute. Conflicts arise, thus rules are needed. People who enjoy rules tend to win arguments, geting a kick out of it, while losers feel miserable. So far so good. Normal churn of editors occur, but with time dynamic above leads to old crew / good rules players to stay, while more idealistic people who care about rules less tend to drop the project faster. Thus with time old guard becomes a problem - they feel skillful enough to control the process and perversely get enjoyment mostly from moderation /rules application process, not from actual content contribution. My solution for this problem - force old guard to retire. I.e. you can edit Wikipedia for X years. After that you are banned for life. Would that help? (obviously, enforcement of this rule is not trivial, but that is another problem).
    - contingencies 6y ago
      Principle is good. Maybe a lighter touch version where good or neutral karma actions like lengthening or otherwise generally modifying an article are excepted and only potentially demotivating actions like substantially shortening, deleting, or arguing with people are restricted (maybe 1 per week).
      - zentiggr 6y ago
        Congratulations - welcome to your time as a moderator. Your total punitive actions are X. Please feel free to use them as you wish, after which you are welcome to continue using the service forever.
oriel 6y ago
Expert to me implies long experience across a variety of challenges. Long-term editors leaving sounds like another challenge, but it doesn't invalidate the expert status.

The might be leaving to other newer alternatives like blockchain-based Everipedia.org or Golden.com (which recently raised from a16z).

calcifer 6y ago
Thanks for the analysis, I'm sure you're right WikipediasBad. EDIT: Looking at both websites, neither of them seem remotely in the same market as Wikipedia.
- WikipediasBad 6y ago
  Ah thanks for the downvote, you're very neutral and would make a great Wikipedia contributor. /s How are the two sites not remotely in the same market? They are literally knowledge bases. Albeit, Golden is focusing more on structured data similar to Wikidata.org and Everipedia.org is focusing more on blockchain related content first with the backend using smart contracts/token incentivization.
ThalesX 6y ago
I gave Golden a read when it first popped up, but it's backed by VC so I'm not sure how this model goes well with open access to data.

exo762 6y ago

AFAIK The real problem is lack of new blood. Old editors who become masters of wikipedia rules-fu are to blame.

contingencies 6y ago
Agreed. I am an old admin driven mad by rules-fu thus contributing less than ever.
- exo762 6y ago
  Both Wikipedia and StackOverflow have a problem of retaining new contributors. I always had my pet theory on possible solution for this problem, and I wonder what do you think about it. I see it like that. New contributors come to contribute. Conflicts arise, thus rules are needed. People who enjoy rules tend to win arguments, geting a kick out of it, while losers feel miserable. So far so good. Normal churn of editors occur, but with time dynamic above leads to old crew / good rules players to stay, while more idealistic people who care about rules less tend to drop the project faster. Thus with time old guard becomes a problem - they feel skillful enough to control the process and perversely get enjoyment mostly from moderation /rules application process, not from actual content contribution. My solution for this problem - force old guard to retire. I.e. you can edit Wikipedia for X years. After that you are banned for life. Would that help? (obviously, enforcement of this rule is not trivial, but that is another problem).
  - contingencies 6y ago
    Principle is good. Maybe a lighter touch version where good or neutral karma actions like lengthening or otherwise generally modifying an article are excepted and only potentially demotivating actions like substantially shortening, deleting, or arguing with people are restricted (maybe 1 per week).
    - zentiggr 6y ago
      Congratulations - welcome to your time as a moderator. Your total punitive actions are X. Please feel free to use them as you wish, after which you are welcome to continue using the service forever.

oriel 6y ago

Expert to me implies long experience across a variety of challenges. Long-term editors leaving sounds like another challenge, but it doesn't invalidate the expert status.