As a longstanding research interest of mine, I have a thesis about this
topic, one which I expect to be controversial, and I would be very
interested to hear whether other Wiki researchers have considered; it's not
one I see in the NPOV work or other critical studies of Wikipedia, at least
so far, and it does bear on core features of Wikipedia itself.
a) "but for the shouting," many major Wikipedia areas, especially in core
areas of human knowledge, are becoming effectively *finished*. there is
nothing major left to do. that doesn't mean they will never change, or be
expanded, etc., but as a general observation I think it has some*
*strong *prima
facie *evidence in its favor.
i know that's controversial in and of itself, but i have an even more
controversial observation that I rarely hear discussed in wiki circles:
b) while the finishing of major facets of human knowledge is an explicit
goal of Wikipedia, it turns out that in addition to its abundant positive
consequences, "finishing" (or mostly finishing) areas of human knowledge
has *very real negative consequences*. the most salient of these
is:*leaving future generations with the feeling and even the factual
situation
that "there is nothing substantial left to do."*
much of the initial excitement about Wikipedia, speaking very
impressionistically, appears to me to have been due to the fact that there
was *so much *to do.
now, in such a short time, there is *so much less *to do.
that isn't just a negative for Wikipedia--it's a negative for everyone.
I am a college professor. At one time, it was fun to have students scope
out areas of knowledge and either write or consider writing Wikipedia
entries for areas of study.
Now, I have the opposite problem. For many topics I teach (but by no means
all) I must tell my students to avoid Wikipedia, because it produces the
instantly demoralizing effect: "it's all been done/said already."
I don't think anyone can have anticipated this consequence 10 years ago,
but I believe it is very real, and I wonder almost every day about how to
handle it. because for many reasons, and I hope and believe there are
people on this list who will sympathize with what i'm saying, what would be
wonderful is if every generation could have the fun and excitement of
building Wikipedia from scratch, rather than the demoralization that occurs
when one happens to actually go look at a Wikipedia page on something about
which one has the excitement of discovery, only to find it completely
mapped out to a level of detail unimaginable just a decade ago.
i wonder about how Wikipedians consider and imagine the future as something
more than a site for the "ultimate Wikipedia"--do they, do we, really think
carefully about the needs of future people to have substantial gaps in
knowledge that it becomes their job to fill in? Have we, to some extent at
least, taken from our children (and their children, etc.) something they
would be better off having? and if so, what can we do to return to them the
curiosity and wonder and feeling that "human knowledge is not finished"
that are absolutely necessary to the development of knowing individuals?
i am absolutely not denying that there will always be many parts of
Wikipedia that can be fleshed out, many new areas of knowledge, Wikipedias
in other languages, etc. I am talking primarily about historical events,
major figures from every walk of life, major historical idea-based topics,
and other central parts of human knowledge (esp. in the West, where
Wikipedias are closest to being "finished"), because these are the areas in
which the dispiriting effects I observe seem most worrisome.
David
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Richard Jensen <rjensen(a)uic.edu> wrote:
I am looking at the edit history of a number of major
articles on
historical topics (in the English Wikipedia)
I find that most of the important writing was done in 2006-8. Typically,
the article reached maturity about 2008 and since then the rate of editing
has plunged. In most cases I see only minor or maintenance editing since
then. The new material since 2008 is mostly cosmetic: illustrations still
get added, lots of links are made, new categories added, new lists are
appended, vandalism is removed. The citations are increasingly out of
date. The articles are long in tooth.
Wiki is now resembling the old paper encyclopedias--they would get old
fast and need constant updating either through yearbooks or new editions.
Richard Jensen
______________________________**_________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.**wikimedia.org<Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wiki-**research-l<https:/…
--
David Golumbia
dgolumbia(a)gmail.com