Wikipedia Approaches Its Limits 564
Reservoir Hill writes "The Guardian reports that a study by Ed H Chi demonstrates that the character of Wikipedia has changed significantly since Wikipedia's first burst of activity between 2004 and 2007. While the encyclopedia is still growing overall, the number of articles being added has reduced from an average of 2,200 a day in July 2007 to around 1,300 today while at the same time, the base of highly active editors has remained more or less static. Chi's team discovered that the way the site operates had changed significantly from the early days, when it ran an open-door policy that allowed in anyone with the time and energy to dedicate to the project. Today, they discovered, a stable group of high-level editors has become increasingly responsible for controlling the encyclopedia, while casual contributors and editors are falling away. 'We found that if you were an elite editor, the chance of your edit being reverted was something in the order of 1% — and that's been very consistent over time from around 2003 or 2004,' says Chi. 'For editors that make between two and nine edits a month, the percentage of their edits being reverted had gone from 5% in 2004 all the way up to about 15% by October 2008. And the 'onesies' — people who only make one edit a month — their edits are now being reverted at a 25% rate.' While Chi points out that this does not necessarily imply causation, he suggests it is concrete evidence to back up what many people have been saying: that it is increasingly difficult to enjoy contributing to Wikipedia unless you are part of the site's inner core of editors. Wikipedia's growth pattern suggests that it is becoming like a community where resources have started to run out. 'As you run out of food, people start competing for that food, and that results in a slowdown in population growth and means that the stronger, more well-adapted part of the population starts to have more power.'"
Re:Amen to that (Score:5, Informative)
Information that is not independently verifiable does not belong in an encyclopedia.
True, but the problem is how Wikipedia defines "verifiability". In most cases I have encountered it was used in the "it was printed on paper" sense, it didn't matter if the source was trustworthy, a press release or any other incorrect crap, as long as it was paper. Other Wikis, Blogs or Forums that might have easily verifiable knowledge of certain subjects aren't accepted as source. The PSP Homebrew article for example is pretty worthless blubber for that reason, mainstream press just doesn't like to talk about homebrew.
Re:It's their own fault (Score:5, Informative)
Like the articles about wikipedia's founder for example. Oh wait ... For a "self-avowed objectivist to the core" he sure has a low tolerance for criticism. (I refuse to link to his wikipedia page, if you want to see masturbation in action there are quite sufficient sites depicting that, and none of them should be linked)
Re:It's their own fault (Score:3, Informative)
Yup. I submitted fixes for things like the date of an event which I knew to be incorrect since I was at the event. I found the correct date in a document already cited for other facts.
I left a note explaining where the correct date came from, the citation, and personal experience confirming the correct article. My edit got reverted and this article still shows the incorrect date 5 years later and it seems I'm not the only person to attempt to correct it.
That's the only edit I've ever attempted and the only edit I will both to try to fix. Also, I tend to read the documents cited rather than wikipedia itself for anything I actually care about.
Re:How many editors are retirees? (Score:4, Informative)
Most of them range from young kids to middle-age, with hardly any of them old. They're just trying to make a name for themselves in "teh intarwebs." You need only check-out a few of their pages - most [wikipedia.org] are [wikipedia.org] pedestals [wikipedia.org] from [wikipedia.org] which [wikipedia.org] to [wikipedia.org] gloat [wikipedia.org] about [wikipedia.org] their [wikipedia.org] Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] penis [wikipedia.org], and yet these are the people IN CHARGE.
It's this kind of arrogant attitude that's kept me away from Wikipedia the last few years - anything I add ends-up rejected because some stupid kid has a hard-on for his power position. You want to know why Wikipedia is not growing? It's because the new pack of cyber nerds is defending it's territory.
Here's the full list [wikipedia.org].
Consensus (Score:5, Informative)
No. It's the encyclopedia you may edit so long as you have "consensus".
I recently decided to edit out a particularly rambling and circular introduction [wikipedia.org] to the Exponential Function. Needless to say, my excision was not taken too kindly. I found myself in a protracted and frankly, surreal struggle to make the article in some way useful for the people who come to read it.
Long story short, my opinions on how best to present the exponential function were labeled a POINT OF VIEW [wikipedia.org], a major no-no contrary to the higher WP:PRINCPLES. Having found myself lumped in with Holocaust deniers and cranks of every degree [wikipedia.org], my chances of making further edits to the article were in fact pretty slim. What debate there once again was petered out without any "consensus", which meant I couldn't alter the status quo.
This is at least the fourth time this has happened to me on Wikipedia.
The usual routine is that someone who "owns" the article with throw up a mountain of WP:RULES and WP:TRADITIONS, each more underhanded in intent than the last, in an effort to stonewall you for as long as they can. They can keep this up for months. Any "debates" with the aim to achieve consensus are farcical to begin with, as everyone involved knows that they never, ever reach consensus on anything. Good men get frustrated, demoralised and bored, and leave, letting evil triumph. I do not use evil in a rhetorical way. I firmly believe that the great majority of wiki-lawyers have petty malice and megalomania as their primary motivations rather than concern for the quality of articles.
The Wikipedia page for World War 2 had the start date for the conflict as "Late 1930s" for over 5 months [wikipedia.org]. Five months with a totally incorrect date for one of the most important events of human history because one editor felt things needed to be more "inclusive". I'm all for inclusivity, but stupidity is where I draw the line. The usual farce ensued. The editors set up a Mediation Cabal [wikipedia.org] to reach "consensus" on the issue(Their discussion once again petered out impotently), all while the the obscenity of a start date sat, unmolested for 5 months on one of the most visited pages on the site, no, on the internet. The thought of how its precence may have shifted general human knowledge and understanding of the conflict saddens me.
There is a deep and by now, inoperable rot and the centre of how things are run and done at Wikipedia. The rot began with Jimbo Wales and his simple inability and unwillingness to properly run a project of this scope and importance. As time went by, only the most devious, duplicitous and underhanded of editors prospered and gained control. Now, as the site enters its consolidation phase, the altruism and effort of millions of honest editors has been crushed under the weight of one of the most corrupt and intransigent bureaucracies in the world today.
Wikipedia is rotten from the Top to the Bottom and cannot be trusted for anything, by anyone, for any reason. Even as a reference section. Not even the chemistry and astronomy pages can be relied upon these days,. Things will only get worse as the Wikicrats, Wikilawyers and Wikiticians assume total oligarchical control.
Re:The Incestuous Cesspool (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A halfway decent source? How? (Score:5, Informative)
"Wikipedia doesn't publish "things that are true", it publishes "things that can be verified by asking other reliable sources"."
What a load of BS.
While I marvel at your debating skills, I think you are missing the point. Encyclopedias are never the primary source of information. They merely compile and reference other works. This is not a wikipedia thing. This is an encyclopedia thing.
Re:The Incestuous Cesspool (Score:4, Informative)
Re:My bad Wikipedia experience (Score:4, Informative)
wikipedia, the 'open' encyclopedia? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How many editors are retirees? (Score:2, Informative)
check-out a few of their pages [...] anything I add ends-up rejected [...] defending it's territory
Maybe it ends up rejected because of your poor attention to detail.
maybe, possibly, your edits just suck? (Score:3, Informative)
I've edited articles as an anonymous nobody, and haven't had the content revoked. Granted, I haven't started new articles. But, 25% reject isn't so bad, considering the average human's writing capability. People have an inflated opinion of their own ability. Experienced users have less rejects because they are more skilled at formatting articles and are more knowledgeable about the wikipedia point of view. What, do you really expect the average Joe's contribution to be as reliable as a seasoned wiki editor?
Use the article's talk page (Score:3, Informative)
No comment on the revert.
WP:BRD [wikipedia.org] tells what to do whenever you get reverted without comment or if you don't understand the reason given in the edit summary: start a new section in the article's talk page asking for clarification, and then make the edit again a week later if nobody objects [wikipedia.org]. This works because anybody who watches [wikipedia.org] an article also watches its talk page.
Re:The Incestuous Cesspool (Score:5, Informative)
It's called Wikia (Score:3, Informative)
I'd like to see a new/competing version of the online encyclopedia which attempts to be more inclusive of all information.
It exists. It's called Wikia. Wikia has the Star [Trek|Craft|Gate|Wars] wikis, where the fanboys can publish the details of every item ever mentioned in any spinoff comic book. Go there and post away.
Reputation vs merit of the work (Score:3, Informative)
I abandoned trying to edit Wikipedia years ago when I read a Wikipedia article dealing with the ethnicity of ancient Egyptians. It made aberrant claims about all Pharaohs being black, citing afrocentrist "historians" as sole sources, without a single instance of the word Copt.
Turns out however that despite the ridiculousness of the claims in the article and the obvious bias, this couldn't be challenged, as it was the pet article of an afrocentrist but otherwise reputable contributor. See, while the person in question was a valuable contributor, they used Wikipedia as a platform to push their agenda. That gave them a sort of immunity, it's like a reward, you contribute a lot, so you get to have some propaganda real estate. I'm sure that most contributors don't actually use it to push their agenda, but every once in a while you can catch one doing just that, and it's hard to challenge them because their reputation outweighs the qualities of their work.
Re:It's their own fault (Score:3, Informative)
Cretin. A National Health Service...at least mine...doesn't preclude me from buying private health insurance, nor my employer from providing me with a private health plan. What it does do is provide a large section of the population (who can't afford private health insurance, or whose employer cannot or will not provide them with a private health plan) to have access to health care. Including, but not limited to, the terminally ill, the young, the elderly and the un-employed.
You can quote specific corner-cases affecting very expensive treatments or treatments with dubious efficacy all you want, but you seem to be overlooking the fact that in the U.S., over 60% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills [cnn.com]. The U.S. may be a lot of things, but a model of a first-world health-care provider it is not. Give me a "death-panel" any day of the week.