3 ms·
It's mostly common sense. A sensible guide is: would an article on the same subject, but hosted on a different site, mention Wikipedia?
by gort 17y ago
It's mostly common sense. A sensible guide is: would an article on the same subject, but hosted on a different site, mention Wikipedia?
- gritzko 17y agoSorry for the emotional response. I agree. But more or less that confirms a point: contributing to Wikipedia became a complex business; thus, the growth predictably stopped.
- dasil003 17y agothe growth predictably stopped While none of the comments or OA itself come out and say it, there seems to be an implicit assumption that this is bad. However when I go to wikipedia there is an article about anything I want to look up. It seems like the low-hanging fruit is gone, so shouldn't we expect that it would slow down? Once there is a critical mass of editors it makes sense to slow it down and keep the bar high for contributions. It's far from perfect, but isn't it better than "grow grow grow"?
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- xsmasher 17y agoAgreed, more editing does not eaqual more quality, or vice versa. This leveling off (or even contraction) may be a normal stage in the maturity of Wikipedia. A bigger problem, I think, is that many articles reach a high level of quality, and then suffer a succession of edits that clutter up or otherwise reduce the quality of the article. Wikipedia needs a way to fight this article entropy.