Wikipedia's Participation Problem 372
holy_calamity writes "More people use Wikipedia than ever but the number of people contributing to the project has declined by a third since 2007, and it still has significant gaps in its quality and coverage. MIT Technology Review reports on the troubled efforts to make the site more welcoming to newcomers, which Jimmy Wales says must succeed if Wikipedia is to address its failings."
Re:The established editors are the problem. (Score:2, Informative)
When the deletionists started dominating the process my enthusiasm for contributing anything dropped off greatly. Whether I'm contributing on my own or watching as formerly useful material contributed by other people disappears because it supposedly isn't "noteworthy" enough, it doesn't exactly inspire people to participate.
Re:Statistics (Score:3, Informative)
That was my question. According to this [slashdot.org] article from 2012, Wikipedia is essentially complete, at least as far as major topics are concerned.
From the earlier article:
So, not only is this article kind of a dupe, but the questions raised by the MIT Technology Review article were basically addressed in the one in the Atlantic from a year earlier.
Re:Yep... this is *the* problem, here and now.... (Score:2, Informative)
When they considers the things I want to contribute "notable" then they can have my donations. I am *TIRED* of the delete trolls and have yet to see any real reform.
Re:Unfriendly Elitists (Score:4, Informative)
187 people?! What the hell do they do all day?
Anyway, I agree with the sentiment in this thread. The last time I tried to actually make a change to Wikipedia it was the most unbelievably retarded experience I've had for a long time. The fact that that community would try to kill something as basic as a WYSIWYG editor doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
Basic summary of experience: The Wikipedia article on Bitcoin has a statement like, "Bitcoin has been criticised for being a ponzi scheme". The citations for this "fact" are, (1) an article in The Register which simply repeats the statement that "Bitcoin has been criticised for having the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme" and links to some random guys blog post which doesn't even make that claim, and (2) an article in Reuters which again says at the top merely that it's been "variously dismissed as a Ponzi scheme or lauded as the greatest invention since the internet".
The problems here are numerous. Firstly, the citations don't actually back up the claim. Even though finding idiots on the internet who don't understand the definition of any given term is trivial, neither citation succeeds in actually doing so. Instead they merely assert that unspecific people believe that, which is circular. Secondly, one can actually check the dictionary definition of a Ponzi scheme and see that a free-floating asset class cannot meet that definition. So the claim fails basic logic.
There have been raging arguments about this on the Talk page for over a year now, heck maybe over two years. Here's a quote from the current incarnation:
This is the kind of "what the fuck" statement that just kills interest in editing Wikipedia dead. This guy, who is apparently quite knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies, agrees that the statement is bogus yet says it cannot be removed due to Wikipedia policy - in flat and total contradiction of common sense.
Previous rounds of this flamewar (that were since deleted) did in fact provide well reasoned arguments that the statement was false, some written specifically for Wikipedia. But it turned out that they were all invalidated by Wikipedia policy because variously, someones blog was not a valid source (whereas an article on the Register was), logic-based discussion on the Talk page was "original research", etc.
When you see pages which are camped by idiots who constantly cite policy as a justification for ignoring basic common sense you quickly realise the entire project is doomed. Something like Wikipedia can only work if there's some kind of strong personality or driving force that actively shapes the community in a positive direction. A rudderless community rapidly devolves into absurd bureaucratic in-fighting of the kind that makes the civil service look proactive and lean. In that regard TFA is completely correct.
Re:How Does One Become an Editor? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, that happens sometimes. People get a bit fanatical about reverting vandalism. The best thing to do is to always use an edit summary with polite, neutral language that directly cites Wikipedia policy. For example: "remove unverifiable, unsourced statement, per [[WP:V]]" or even just say something terse like "unsourced". That will signal to people that you're at least vaguely familiar with Wikipedia's policies and not a simple vandal who likes to randomly remove sentences.
When people challenge you, tell them the burden of proof lies on them. You can cite [[WP:BURDEN]], Wikipedia policy which explicitly states this.
Re:How Does One Become an Editor? (Score:3, Informative)
Pretty much. I've created several articles that were fast-deleted by an admin, against policy of course. Last time (in September), I insisted on policy being followed, so the article was put on RFD, but it did attract some upvotes. I haven't bothered checking what happened to it in the end.
But Pokemon characters have pretty good coverage!