Anders, I have also thought about that aspect and that is why I contribute
to Mix-n-Match. We have at our disposal lots of finite datasets that were
used to populate Wikipedia with in the early days. Most notable on the
English Wikipedia is the out-of-copyright versions of the Encyclopedia
Britannica. I would like to know
1) are all articles on Wikipedia now?
2) what are the demographics of the biographies on there vs Wikipedia today?
and so forth
Andrew mentioned many more things, such as this from Pew (2010): "Only 14%
of teens ages 12-17 worked on their own blog as of 2009, a drastic decrease
since 2006, when twice as many (28%) said they had done so."
When I read that, I thought of a teenager I know who had suicidal
tendencies because of online stalking. I think the younger generation is
much more aware of the risks of being online and are unwilling to share as
much as my generation. As far as the computer-savvy Baby-boomers go, we
should see a majority turn to Wikipedia editing as they round the 65-year
retirement corner. Maybe we should target this crowd?
Jane
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Anders Wennersten <mail(a)anderswennersten.se
wrote:
I believe you are on something that would be very worthwhile to look
further into
I often think of three phases and likens it to shooting at a wall with a
paintball gun
-first you get enormous result and really see effect but the wall is
uneven painted, but to fill in the gaps in not as fun (initial phase up to
2007)
-then comes the filling in of empty spaces, take care of uneven paint etc.
it needs more patience, precision and endurance (2007 up to about now)
-But then I beleive we must enter a third phase, where we redo the
painting but not with a paintball gun but with a painting machine, that
meticulous and methodology repaint the wall board by board, where coverage,
sustainable and quality is at focus. And here I see bots, Wikidata and
semiautomatic efforts as key components
And I would love to get the first two of these phases validated by numbers
as you think of. And later then reflect on how we work as communities, also
having in mind the third phase I anticipate as necessary
Anders
Andrew Lih skrev den 2014-12-12 12:40:
FYI, I'm wondering if anyone has compared Wikipedia's hyper growth until
2007 and subsequent slower rate of production to the phenomenon of music CD
sales in the 1980s/1990s that also surged then waned in a similar
fashion.
If you examine the graph of global music sales revenue since 1980, it
will look familiar to those who study Wikipedia's new articles per year
numbers. [1] [2]
I noted this at a recent talk by Aram Sinnreich (Rutgers) who studies
digital downloads and whether online music piracy killed CD sales. The
conclusion was: no, piracy was not the major factor. The "format
replacement cycle" of the 1980s/1990s was responsible for an unusual
one-time surge, when people who owned vinyl or cassettes started re-buying
titles they already had, to get high quality and convenient CD-versions.
That "surge" was (erroneously) interpreted by the recording industry as the
natural long term trajectory of sales, and the resulting music sales
collapse has been falsely attributed to illegal downloads. Conclusion: the
music sales curve is in fact the sum of several curves that take into
account that one-time surge, how big box retailers priced their music,
sales of $0.99 singles and the advent of new technologies like streaming
services (Pandora, Spotify, etc).
Using this model, Wikipedia experienced the same "low hanging fruit"
surge in its early years. This is what Ed Chi (PARC/Google) considered the
"catch up" phase of Wikipedia [3], when we were cataloging "common
knowledge," and effectively replacing our "old" sources of info --
Britannica, Encarta, CIA Factbook, US Census, public domain, et al -- with
content that was easy to input and energize new users.
If we accept this as a plausible model vs the standard "hype cycle" [4]
explanation of Wikipedia's rise/fall, we should look to other examples for
which this "replacement" dynamic holds for more clues about Wikipedia's
future. Phenomena we see in Wikipedia that affect community growth are
remnants, and perhaps relics, of that earlier era. We need to ask: are
policies adopted for 2007-era levels of hyper-participation that persist
today harmful to ongoing community dynamics? (ie. Request for Adminship,
restrictions on article creation, et al)
In what instances should Wikipedia lower its shields, so to speak, in
reaction to this new landscape? Do we as a community have the procedures or
culture to be agile in response to these changing conditions? The tension
between WMF R&D efforts and "the community" is a clear example of this
inability to reconcile change (eg. visual editor and media viewer
adoption). Not everything is gloomy, however. One could argue that the
willingness of Europe-based Wikipedia editions to allow corporate
representatives and "paid editors" to openly edit Wikipedia directly (an
absolute no-no in en.wp) is an example of flexible policy when faced with
the realities of long-term growth and maintainability. English Wikipedia
certainly seems more rigid in that sense.
That said, I still feel the "Facebook/Twitter ate my community" angle
merits more analysis. The fact that all the major language Wikipedia
editions dropped in that same 2007 time frame, as well as WikiHow, is still
eyebrow-raising. It certainly demands we consider external effects. If you
examine blogging activity during that same period, it dropped off a cliff
from 2006-2009. From Pew (2010): "Only 14% of teens ages 12-17 worked on
their own blog as of 2009, a drastic decrease since 2006, when twice as
many (28%) said they had done so. Millennials have also seen a decline in
blogging over the past couple years, from 20% in December 2008 to 18% in
May 2010." [5] Those 12-17 year olds are now 17-22 years old, exactly the
types of folks we'd like to get involved with Wikipedia. However, instead
of being weaned on MySpace HTML hacking on a laptop screens like previous
generation of "digital natives," they have grown up with slick WYSIWYG
Facebook and Twitter interactions on their mobile device. Imagine what they
think when they click "Edit" and see templates, info boxes and Wikimarkup
galore.
Don't stop at the "low hanging fruit" phenomenon. There are still lots
of interesting dynamics to consider.
PS: See what happens when your blogging activity drops off? You wind up
spending an hour on an email to Wikiresearch-L
[1]
http://mcpress.media-commons.org/piracycrusade/chapter-5-bubbles-and-storms…
[2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Enwikipediagrowthcomparison.PNG
[3]
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~echi/papers/2009-WikiSym/wikipedia-slow-growth…
[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle
[5]
http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media/Files/Reports/2010/PIP_Generatio…
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing
listWiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l