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:Its simple really (Score:4, Interesting)
Unreasonable rejection is what turns people off.
Unless and until WikiPedia resolves the problem with moderators, participation will continue to decline.
.
No one wants to deal with the Nurse Ratched moderators who seem to hover over certain topics, punishing those who want to contribute.
Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Wikipedia was run by people that equated quantity with quality. It was routine to see someone heralded as authoritative because they had made tens of thousand or more edits. In reality the only thing that shows is that someone is obsessive compulsive, doesn't have a job or has a job where they don't have to work. The result was large numbers of articles that were complete and utter crap, a few that were well qualified and the constant question of was the last edit done by a PhD that's an expert in the field or a bored teenager?
It's long overdue for quantity to step to the wayside so that quality can step up to the plate. When wikipedia can stop ranking editors by quantity and start ranking editors by quality the entire site will gain credibility. The concept that just anyone can know what their talking and edit something accordingly leads to idiots that cite wikipedia over the CDC or a thousand other examples I can think of.
Wikipedia still suffers from tremendous a vocal minority on certain political subjects that are locked and to prevent any viewpoint other than the vocal minority that won the right to represent their view on the given subject. Wikipedia has made improvements, but it has a hell of a long way to go before it can be anything other than a starting point for the curious and gullible.
No Big Mystery (Score:5, Interesting)
Pick almost almost any random article, something not too obscure. Look for some cumbersome or inelegant prose and clean it up. Don't even change anything factual, just make the article objectively clearer. This isn't even very hard to do, since many articles are written by technical-types who aren't very proficient at communicating. You see this sort of thing with engineers especially; the kind of people who resented having to take English classes.
Now wait about five minutes. Your edit will automatically be reverted by a bot squatting on the article. And after a few seconds you'll receive an automated message, usually beginning with an insincere and condescending, "Welcome to Wikipedia! I've automatically reverted your edit because...".
You can try to start an edit war, but the entrenched editors of most articles have more seniority than you, they're "experts", and it's really not worth the hassle just to make small changes. So you end up with a lot of articles which seem like they have been written by people with Aspergers, or a tenuous grasp of English. I can't speak to the editing climate in other languages.
I don't have a comprehensive solution to this problem, but it probably has something to do with getting rid of the automated bots which protect pages. That'd be a decent start.
It's a great resource if used wisely (Score:5, Interesting)
Let me help (Score:2, Interesting)
You want to address your failings?
Fuck you for making it so difficult to edit Wikipedia successfully. Even to use the talk pages, you have to work with some obscure mark-up language which most people have no intention of ever learning. If you don't, any contribution you make will be deleted for "vandalism".
And double fuck-you for playing favorites with various editors and admins. If you perm-banned the top 1000 most frequent contributors, the quality of wiki would go through the roof.
Re:Bad Answer to the Problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Think how annoying this must be for the established editors though:
You've just got this article prefect and some mayfly comes along and *changes it*. You'd got it the prefect mix of concise and thorough and someone with a different opinion, sorry someone who is wrong comes along and ruins it; and somehow you're the bad boy for trying to maintain standards!
They must be leaving out of frustration too,
(Yes I stopped editing pages or even participating in the talk pages several years ago, they don't want your help, they don't want your input they just want you to read their minds and do their work for them in exactly the way they would do it but any variance from that ideal is removed).
Re:Why I don't edit (Score:5, Interesting)
I converted a paragraph that looked like it had been run through Google translate a few times into actual English. It was reverted. The people that claim Wikipedia entries as their own are generally some of the dumbest people on the internet. The YouTube commenters are the ones in charge.
Jimmy Doesn't See a Problem (Score:5, Interesting)
I asked Jimmy directly about this in a pretty even handed way when he did the Slashdot interview questions back in August. He responded:
" Things have mostly stabilized. It's still not a crisis, but I still consider it to be important. One of the most exciting developments is the visual editor, which I hope will bring in a whole new class of editors who were turned off by the complexities of wikitext."
More or less he dismissed the premise that there was a problem in the first place, and any issues that are left could be handled with a better editor UI. Now, I do think the Wikimedia editor needs work, but Jimmy is kidding himself. Maybe he'll get a new rush of editors when they release the new UI, but I'm not convinced they'll stay.
Re:I was planning to help out... (Score:4, Interesting)
And there's the single greatest problem. There are assholes out there who spend their days sprinkling "citation needed"s around like they were pixie dust. The most unremarkable non-controversial everyone-knows third-grade logic kind of statements get one, and, once applied, can never, ever be gotten rid of. "Shallots have an oniony/garlicky flavor" [citation needed]. And so it will remain until the end of time. Try deleting it and wait to see how it takes for someone to revert it. More futile yet, try to find a "non-anecdotal" reference to satisfy the pixie-dusters.
How Does One Become an Editor? (Score:4, Interesting)
I have not tried to contribute to wikipedia yet (though I have thought about it, I have been unsure whether I want to try given the currently climate described), but it occurred to me: how does one become an editor?
I am wondering, if current editors are appointed and have permanent control and this is causing problems, what if Wikipedia switched to something akin to slashdot's moderation (and metamoderation) tool? Let random people vote on if they think the change was warranted. They don't need to be experts on the topic, just answer yes or no as to whether the change was significant and properly documented with references. If so, then vote ok, and overrule the mods that may be blocking it. Is that not possible?
Re:The established editors are the problem. (Score:4, Interesting)
Take away editorial privileges from anyone with more deletions/reversions than actual contributions. Done.
Simple. Elegant. Wrong. A huge percentage of edits on Wikipedia are vandalism. A huge percentage of new articles are ads. Getting rid of those is an important job.
I would also suggest the age-old technique of using known-quality data to audit the editors - Assemble a team of known-good content creators and have them contribute under a variety of pseudonyms. Instantly fire any editor that decides to measure his dick against that known-good content. Best of all, Jimbo doesn't even need to do that in secret - In fact, he shouldn't do it secretly... That way it puts all the editors on notice - Don't fuck with legit content if you want to keep your god-like powers.
Simple, elegant, batshit retarded. You're basically saying "appoint a council of perfect guardians of rightness". It's the most authoritarian, opposite of project-goal design possible.
You know who did that? Citizendium. They don't even fucking exist anymore.
A lot of you are missing the real problem (Score:4, Interesting)
I see a lot of complaints here that boil down to "Subject matter experts try to contribute knowledge, dorky editors revert them over some stupid policy I don't understand the purpose of." From there it just devolves into poo-flinging. Most of you are missing the major policy points that require those reversions, and the truly deep (and perhaps, unsolvable?) problems which are the reasons for those policies. The WP policy stuff is really doing the best it can do, and you're caught up in blaming the "lesser of two evils" results of the process.
The *real* problem for WP can be broken down like this: The WP guys really do genuinely want to build an archive of all human knowledge, freely available to all humans, while minimizing bias and falsehood. They want it to be crowdsourced, too. The obvious problem is that lots of the crowd will contribute false or biased things, and those things have to be filtered out somehow. The primary mechanism of filtration isn't "assign brilliant people in every field to fact-check submissions based on their own expertise", because frankly that would only lead to more bias and more problems. So instead of futilely trying to judge objective truth in that matter, they redefine the objective to a more-attainable version of the truth: we want what's commonly accepted as the truth, not what objectively really is the truth.
The reason for this distinction is it can be enforced easily: all contributions of knowledge have to be backed up by external, 3rd party, editorially-verifiable sources. Then at least the version of truth that passes WP muster can be said to have passed societal muster in general before it arrived on WP, which diverts a large part of the truthiness problem. This leads to a pair of lesser problems, both of which deserve attention, but are very difficult to solve:
1) WP doesn't accept original work from subject matter experts. Even if you *are* the world's leading authority on Quantum Chromodynamics, it's not good enough for you to create an account in your name and start adding random facts from your head to an article about QCD Coloring. Even you, the SME, needs to actually referenced a published book or peer-reviewed journal article for each factoid you add to an article. Obviously, this pisses off SMEs that know what they're talking about; it's annoying to be required to find what is probably an objectively less-qualified source than yourself to back up your claims. Unfortunately, it's the only way to prevent false SMEs: people with an inflated view of their expertise and/or a clear fringe bias. It's also the only way that a committee of non-SME editors can validate the process.
2) Perhaps worse is the problem of self-referential loops with the 3rd-party sourcing. A number of issues come together to create the problem, and a typical example goes like this: A well-meaning person edits an article on Palm Trees in Florida, and adds some hearsay non-sense they heard from their neighbor about a new type of pest imported from Cuba that's attacking the trees and how they might all be gone within 10 years due to this pest. Because very few editors or bots are actively watching the Palm Trees in Florida article, this bullshit goes undetected for a while. Let's say two weeks later, someone gets around to reverting the edit for lack of a verifiable source. However, in the intervening two weeks, a well-meaning reporter for a local news station in Florida happens on the article, sees this shocking fact about Palm Trees dying to pestilence, and writes a local new story about it.
She doesn't cite Wikipedia because, well, that would seem unprofessional. So when the original submitter sees the reversion, the submitter goes googling for evidence to back up the claims and get un-reverted. She stumbles on the local news story and brings it back to the edit war as a verifiable source. The editors pretty much have to accept it, and a new and totally invalid factoid has erroneously become a part of human knowledge.
The problems here are man
Re:How Does One Become an Editor? (Score:5, Interesting)
Precisely this.
At one time, ages ago, getting admin privileges was easy. Make some good edits, prove you could contribute well, and you were basically in.
Then came editcountitis, where people with less than X thousand edits (I think it's at what, 50,000 now?) were cast aside. Editcountitis created the current "revert monkey" culture and the fast-action tools so that people can automatically revert anything that happens without even reading the edit. Push button, issue revert. Most of these monkeys sit around slapping "revert" all day without reading; some of them actually just use a script to automatically click "revert" on their tool of choice in order to pad their edit counts.
Then came, also, the cliques. Self-protecting groups formed, and the worst is the admins because once you are an admin, you are expected to ALWAYS back up the actions of another admin. You can't badmouth other admins - that's not the way the game is played - but you can be as ugly and mean-spirited to any normal user you want, and when they respond in kind you can either issue a block yourself or ask a supposedly "uninvolved" admin to be your proxy in return for Favors To Be Named Later. Because after all, "civility" only applies to those who don't have the Special Buttons.
The way the game is played, if you are trying to influence an article on Wikipedia, is simple. You revert-monkey someone right to the point of 3RR. You never discuss anything on a talk page and if you've hit 3RR, you find someone to collude with to start reverting in tag-team, then you accuse the other side of either "breaking 3RR" or "not discussing." If you want to and have the backing of a friendly admin, you get them blocked and then issue gloating messages or just template the hell out of them to further infuriate them and bait them into responding "incivilly" to your harassment, at which point your friend the admin gets to escalate the blocks over and over again. Eventually, you'll run the new person off and you get to [[WP:OWN]] your article again, so long as you can keep new editors from ever sticking around long enough for them to actually work and discuss and change the consensus.
The goal of wikipedia's admins is to drive off new editors, and anyone who tells you differently is likely a wikipedia admin.
Re:This, this, and more this! (Score:5, Interesting)
I've written at least a half-dozen Wikipedia articles or major article sections on a few different topics (bios of various authors, among others). None were summarily deleted or reverted; as far as I can tell (I don't keep close watch on them), they all still exist, and most still incorporate significant amounts of my contributions. They all seem to be in better shape now than when I first wrote them.
Here's what I did: First, I registered an account. Whenever I was thinking of making major changes/additions to an existing article (in some cases it was non-existent or a stub), I first posted on the talk page, expressing my interest in the topic, diplomatically describing what I thought could be improved, outlining what I was planning to do, and asking for comments and suggestions. This rarely got any replies, but ensured I wouldn't be stepping too hard on any toes.
In parallel with this, I figured out what the best available sources on the topic were: online material, sure (more for orientation than for incorporating), but preferably published books. If I didn't have them already I got hold of them, either through the library or second-hand (or Google Books if not in copyright). In some cases, articles in academic journals were more useful, and I was able to access these through a university library. I read or at least skimmed them.
Then I wrote the contribution, using (not copying verbatim) the information from the references and providing citations to them. I tried to write in a straightforward but encyclopedic style, to format it to be consistent with the rest of the article, and to follow the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia rules. I submitted my edits, and sometimes made another comment on the talk page, inviting comments or explaining any deletions I'd made.
I'm not claiming this is a guaranteed way to get your text on Wikipedia, but in my experience it worked. While I've also had some negative Wikipedia experiences (with smaller edits to other pages, where I didn't go through such an elaborate procedure), overall I find that as long as you understand the basic Wikipedia principles (what kind of stuff belongs and doesn't belong), can separate yourself from the work enough that your edits aren't blatantly about your own ego or biases, have solid sources for what you write, and can string a coherent sentence together, people will usually take you seriously.
There are many disgruntled attempted-Wikipedia-editors out there, some with more legitimate grievances than others. Sometimes it seems like most people who have tried to contribute got shot down. But of course, the most embittered ones are the ones most likely to go on about it: the real distribution could be quite different. Or maybe it's simply that most people aren't capable of making good, suitable contributions to an open encyclopedia. Would that be particularly surprising?
how to (try to) deal with falsehoods on wikipedia (Score:4, Interesting)
I've told this before but it's worth repeating. I live in a very small town (>50 people), the wiki article says that the town was devastated by a fire in the 60s. I removed it because there was no fire, at all. It was reversed and added back and I was told I needed a reference or cite. How do you cite something that didn't happen?
The fire wasn't cited either, but it's still there.
I don't have a complete answer, but one of the things you could do is stick in a 'citation needed' flag. Then you could post on the article's discussion-page to state your challenge to the false content, and say that if no citation is forthcoming you'll delete the unsupported content. That may flush out any a-hole who wants to start an edit war (which is something that can attract WP sanctions anyway), and then if you have the stomach for it you can argue/fight directly if needed -- and if you haven't become tired of all the bullshit.
(Seems to me, btw, one of the neat things about this very flawed wikipedia thing is that at least it did (does?) raise consciousness about the need for checking suspect 'facts' and proper sources. There have even been 'citation needed' T-shirts.)
Maybe you could even stimulate the creation of a 'reliable source' (according to the wikipedia policies) by getting the nearest local newspaper to run a letter or article about wikipedia's false claim about your locality. Then cite that.
HTH
-wb-