4 ms·

There is still PLENTY of knowledge that can be included into Wikipedia, but there are too few main editors to actually refine/expand upon the articles. To impl

by fiaz 18y ago

There is still PLENTY of knowledge that can be included into Wikipedia, but there are too few main editors to actually refine/expand upon the articles. To imply Wikipedia is "saturated" and that it now must grow linearly (because the past year reveals this pattern) is as ridiculous to say that human knowledge is perhaps saturated and must grow linearly because we have not collectively broken out of prevailing models of perception. I believe that this flat trend (in a larger exponential curve that has yet to reveal itself) is a lack of initiative/participation for the moment that has zero predictive value of revealing the nature of Wikipedia's future growth rate.

biohacker42 18y ago
But isn't a large part of it the fact they are working to reproduce an encyclopedia? Shelf space, and to a lesser extent paper, are limited resources so encyclopedia must naturally draw a line somewhere. Why on earth is Wikipedia sticking so closely to that model, when they are not limited by shelf space or paper, is anyone's guess.
- litewulf 18y ago
  I assume "having an article" and the notability requirements are to keep the site from being overrun by fanboys.
- fiaz 18y ago
  That's a great point. I think perhaps this is exemplary of the notion that they are still confined to their previous paradigm of "encyclopedia" instead of infinite knowledge base. A good solution to this would be to introduce levels of specificity to Wikipedia such that what we currently have is the first level, and then the second level would be catered towards individuals who have more than a lay perspective, and then the next successive level would be for experts and so forth. Perhaps this would require different levels of editorship as well, but it is definitely an approach that might give a better organization to Wikipedia that is not flat as is exemplified by traditional encyclopedias.
- joshu 18y ago
  I do wish wikipedia had a notion of sub-wikis so that all the fictional domain pages (the comicbook universes, Star Wars, etc) would be subsumed into one place.
  - LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago
    That is what the whole Wikia federation is about, isn't it?
    - joshu 18y ago
      Wikia and Wikipedia are separated. Feels like there's a lot of duplication as well.

by fiaz 18y ago

biohacker42 18y ago

But isn't a large part of it the fact they are working to reproduce an encyclopedia? Shelf space, and to a lesser extent paper, are limited resources so encyclopedia must naturally draw a line somewhere. Why on earth is Wikipedia sticking so closely to that model, when they are not limited by shelf space or paper, is anyone's guess.

litewulf 18y ago
I assume "having an article" and the notability requirements are to keep the site from being overrun by fanboys.
fiaz 18y ago
That's a great point. I think perhaps this is exemplary of the notion that they are still confined to their previous paradigm of "encyclopedia" instead of infinite knowledge base. A good solution to this would be to introduce levels of specificity to Wikipedia such that what we currently have is the first level, and then the second level would be catered towards individuals who have more than a lay perspective, and then the next successive level would be for experts and so forth. Perhaps this would require different levels of editorship as well, but it is definitely an approach that might give a better organization to Wikipedia that is not flat as is exemplified by traditional encyclopedias.
joshu 18y ago
I do wish wikipedia had a notion of sub-wikis so that all the fictional domain pages (the comicbook universes, Star Wars, etc) would be subsumed into one place.
- LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago
  That is what the whole Wikia federation is about, isn't it?
  - joshu 18y ago
    Wikia and Wikipedia are separated. Feels like there's a lot of duplication as well.