Comments on: The greying of Wikipedia http://futurismic.com/2009/11/25/the-greying-of-wikipedia/ Presenting the fact and fiction of tomorrow since 2001 Sat, 19 May 2012 23:03:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Stephen J. http://futurismic.com/2009/11/25/the-greying-of-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-57199 Stephen J. Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:40:41 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=9660#comment-57199 "A few years ago, all you could find were articles complaining that Wikipedia had too many unskilled and uninformed editors... now that people are being deterred from fiddling because the cost of entry is too high for casual contributions.... C’mon, people; you can’t have it both ways." You can't have it both ways <i>simultaneously</i>; no reason in the world you can't observe, accurately, that it used to be too easy to edit and now it's too hard. (I also suspect that whether one finds it too "easy" or "hard" to edit according to standards has a lot to do with which article's being edited and who else reads that subject matter.) “A few years ago, all you could find were articles complaining that Wikipedia had too many unskilled and uninformed editors… now that people are being deterred from fiddling because the cost of entry is too high for casual contributions…. C’mon, people; you can’t have it both ways.”

You can’t have it both ways simultaneously; no reason in the world you can’t observe, accurately, that it used to be too easy to edit and now it’s too hard. (I also suspect that whether one finds it too “easy” or “hard” to edit according to standards has a lot to do with which article’s being edited and who else reads that subject matter.)

]]> By: Mongol http://futurismic.com/2009/11/25/the-greying-of-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-57115 Mongol Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:57:26 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=9660#comment-57115 Fiefdoms and Warlord lands, as power arranges itself across Wikipedia. Trustworthiness melts away as the wiki talking points are etched in stone. Fiefdoms and Warlord lands, as power arranges itself across Wikipedia. Trustworthiness melts away as the wiki talking points are etched in stone.

]]> By: Wolf http://futurismic.com/2009/11/25/the-greying-of-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-56939 Wolf Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:16:23 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=9660#comment-56939 Another aspect that plays into the dynamic of the loss of editors: Wikipedia is done. Clearly, a good encyclopedia is never done. There is always the need for revision, correction, expansion and consolidation. But the manpower needed for maintaining even a behemoth like Wikipedia, can't be compared with the effort to create such a thing from scratch. I think this loss editors is simply a sign of Wikipedia slowly shifting from "buildup" into "maintenance"-mode. The most common things in this world are already in there, in a more or less complete form. No wonder the editors become fewer. If you visit a Wikipedia article and it contains more knowledge about the subject than you have, there's little left to edit for you. Another aspect that plays into the dynamic of the loss of editors: Wikipedia is done.

Clearly, a good encyclopedia is never done. There is always the need for revision, correction, expansion and consolidation. But the manpower needed for maintaining even a behemoth like Wikipedia, can’t be compared with the effort to create such a thing from scratch.

I think this loss editors is simply a sign of Wikipedia slowly shifting from “buildup” into “maintenance”-mode. The most common things in this world are already in there, in a more or less complete form. No wonder the editors become fewer.
If you visit a Wikipedia article and it contains more knowledge about the subject than you have, there’s little left to edit for you.

]]>