3 ms·
I'll add my own anecdote. I have donated to Wikipedia sporadically over the years, and they asked me to take part in a sort of round table interview / qualitat
by i_love_limes 6y ago
I'll add my own anecdote. I have donated to Wikipedia sporadically over the years, and they asked me to take part in a sort of round table interview / qualitative study.
In a room of other Wikipedia donators, maybe 1/3 of the people there didn't know that the information was entirely community driven, and when they learned, a handful of didn't think it was a good idea!
It just shows how much Wikipedia is just taken for granted, when in reality so so much effort goes in to keeping it free, ad free, open, and accessible to everyone.
- einpoklum 6y ago> maybe 1/3 of the people there didn't know that the information was entirely community driven Maybe because it's not entirely community driven. It is somewhat community driven.
- i_love_limes 6y agoApologies, the distinction wasn't some Vs all, it was that they hadn't even considered how the information got there. Then when they found out, they were immediately sceptical of the idea. Which was hilarious. But also, unless you have a much better understanding than me, it is community driven. Even those who have some official capacity at Wikipedia only got there through countless hours of being a good community member
- einpoklum 6y agoThere is a small group of core "editors". I am not aware of the dynamics within that group, but obviously it is sanctioned and directed by the Wikimedia foundation (certainly through setting policy and allocating budget, but likely also through other forms of direction and interaction). This sets the historical, political and ontological outlook of Wikipedia, in very broad strokes; and decides the actual content on a huge number of articles. Of course, lay "editors" contribute a huge amount of text, but that's not the "driving" part.