3 ms·

I do wonder if this is related to dwindling editor engagement. With fewer people investing a lot of their free time into the project, a move away from a more op

I do wonder if this is related to dwindling editor engagement. With fewer people investing a lot of their free time into the project, a move away from a more open-source approach and more into a content marketing one inspires less opposition. We might be seeing a final cashout attempt by Wikipedia top brass here.

bawolff 6y ago
Editor engagement concerns are mostly around english wikipedia. English is just a small part of the wikimedia world. Besides people have been complaining about editor engagement on en for more than a decade now, its not like much has been changing on that front. [Disclaimer: used to work for WMF. Dont anymore]
- joshuaissac 6y ago
  Active editor count on enwiki peaked at around 100k in 2007 and had fallen to around 50k by 2014. It has been stagnant since, but it is not like complaints about engagement are unwarranted. https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org/contributing/editors/normal|line|2003-05-18~2021-03-17|activity_level~5..24-edits*25..99-edits*100..-edits|monthly https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org/contributing/...
bad_username 6y ago
> I do wonder if this is related to dwindling editor engagement. It increasingly becomes an uphill battle to be a Wikipedia editor - the neutral editors have to fight through the ideological gatekeeping and activism on the site. Even the co-founder of Wikipedia declared its neutrality to be dead. https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
- RichEO 6y ago
  Larry Sanger has been a severe critic of Wikipedia for nearly its entire life. Even putting aside his personal bias, the article you cite is not particularly convincing. As key examples, he compares the Wikipedia pages for Barack Obama (generally positive) and Donald Trump (generally negative) as evidence of failed neutrality. Any definition of neutrality that requires all political figures to be equally criticised and praised would result in a resource that simply has no value. Should the article about Hitler really balance for and against arguments concerning the Holocaust?
  - nicky0 6y ago
    No one is demanding equal amounts of criticism and praise. The argument in the article is that several valid and noteworthy criticisms of Obama are simply missing. It's hard to see it other than as a whitewash.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

bawolff 6y ago

Editor engagement concerns are mostly around english wikipedia. English is just a small part of the wikimedia world. Besides people have been complaining about editor engagement on en for more than a decade now, its not like much has been changing on that front. [Disclaimer: used to work for WMF. Dont anymore]

joshuaissac 6y ago
Active editor count on enwiki peaked at around 100k in 2007 and had fallen to around 50k by 2014. It has been stagnant since, but it is not like complaints about engagement are unwarranted. https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org/contributing/editors/normal|line|2003-05-18~2021-03-17|activity_level~5..24-edits*25..99-edits*100..-edits|monthly https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org/contributing/...

bad_username 6y ago

> I do wonder if this is related to dwindling editor engagement. It increasingly becomes an uphill battle to be a Wikipedia editor - the neutral editors have to fight through the ideological gatekeeping and activism on the site. Even the co-founder of Wikipedia declared its neutrality to be dead. https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/

RichEO 6y ago
Larry Sanger has been a severe critic of Wikipedia for nearly its entire life. Even putting aside his personal bias, the article you cite is not particularly convincing. As key examples, he compares the Wikipedia pages for Barack Obama (generally positive) and Donald Trump (generally negative) as evidence of failed neutrality. Any definition of neutrality that requires all political figures to be equally criticised and praised would result in a resource that simply has no value. Should the article about Hitler really balance for and against arguments concerning the Holocaust?
- nicky0 6y ago
  No one is demanding equal amounts of criticism and praise. The argument in the article is that several valid and noteworthy criticisms of Obama are simply missing. It's hard to see it other than as a whitewash.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]