{"id":2850,"date":"2011-03-28T15:30:48","date_gmt":"2011-03-28T20:30:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cloggie.org\/wissewords2\/2011\/03\/28\/wikipedia-finally-notices-its-in-trouble\/"},"modified":"2011-03-28T15:30:48","modified_gmt":"2011-03-28T20:30:48","slug":"wikipedia-finally-notices-its-in-trouble","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cloggie.org\/wissewords2\/2011\/03\/28\/wikipedia-finally-notices-its-in-trouble\/","title":{"rendered":"Wikipedia finally notices it’s in trouble"},"content":{"rendered":"

\nIs doomed Wikipedia doomed<\/a>?\n<\/p>\n

\"graph<\/p>\n

\nHere\u2019s what we think the Editor Trends Study tells us: Between 2005 and 2007, newbies started having real trouble successfully joining the Wikimedia community. Before 2005 in the English Wikipedia, nearly 40% of new editors would still be active a year after their first edit. After 2007, only about 12-15% of new editors were still active a year after their first edit. Post-2007, lots of people were still trying to become Wikipedia editors. What had changed, though, is that they were increasingly failing to integrate into the Wikipedia community, and failing increasingly quickly. The Wikimedia community had become too hard to penetrate.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\nAs the graph shows, while the number of active editors shot up from 2005, the retention rate of editors, those who are still active a year later, shot down. So there are more editors, but they quit editing earlier. Which in turn means that you have a hard core of longterm, dyed in the wool editors who know how to game the system and a much larger mass of people who discover Wikipedia, start editing and usually drop out in a couple of months, either because they lose interest or because they’re driven out by the hardcore. Editing Wikipedia is not fun anymore.\n<\/p>\n

\nThree reasons for this is: notability, verification and rules lawyering in general. It used to be that Wikipedia culture was fairly tolerant of people following their own interests, putting up entries on lesser known webcomics say and appreciated their efforts. But just when Wikipedia really took off, in 2005-2006, the rules started to change and anything that couldn’t be found in the Encyclopedia Brittannica<\/cite> was suddenly not noticable enough to be in Wikipedia either. The balance in Wikipedia culture switched over from erring on the side of inclusiveness to “when in doubt, delete” — with quite a few editors seeing it as a holy mission to get rid of “fancruft”, insulting and alienating just those people who would’ve made good recruits.\n<\/p>\n

\nAt the same time, responding to a couple of scandals (some more so than others), editing existing articles became harder as well, as verification became the magic word. Every fact had to be verified, linked to some source that proclaimed its truth. It’s not an unreasonable rule, it’s the way it has been used that’s the problem. Too often new editors have had their their heads bitten off for innocently adding facts without verification, or using “suspect” sources, or for using sources not easily verificable or for just happening to disagree with a particular editor’s hobby horse. And verification, like notability is also increasingly used in editor fights, as disagreeing editors nitpick each other’s editors.\n<\/p>\n

\nWhich brings me to the rule lawyering that this emphasis on process over content brought with it. Wikipedia could always be gamed, but when following the rules correctly became more important than actually writing articles, it became that much easier to do so. Too many editors who where more interested in playing this game than in improving Wikipedia became administrators or got themselves in other positions of power and hence warped the project towards their interests. It doesn’t help to improve Wikipedia, but of course winning your fights with other editors because you can twists the rules better is much more important…\n<\/p>\n

\nHowever, the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation has finally woken up and recognised this danger is a good sign. Hopefully they will actually do something about it as well: relax the rules on noticability and verification, get rid of the rules lawyering and get back to making Wikipedia a good encyclopedia.\n<\/p>\n

\n(Via Vuijlsteke<\/a>.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Is doomed Wikipedia doomed? Here\u2019s what we think the Editor Trends Study tells us: Between 2005 and 2007, newbies started having real trouble successfully joining the Wikimedia community. Before 2005 in the English Wikipedia, nearly 40% of new editors would still be active a year after their first edit. After 2007, only about 12-15% of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[97],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2850","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-wikipedia"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cloggie.org\/wissewords2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2850","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cloggie.org\/wissewords2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cloggie.org\/wissewords2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cloggie.org\/wissewords2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cloggie.org\/wissewords2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2850"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/cloggie.org\/wissewords2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2850\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cloggie.org\/wissewords2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2850"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cloggie.org\/wissewords2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2850"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cloggie.org\/wissewords2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2850"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}