[WikiEN-l] What's going on? - Inquiry 2

[Wily D]

On 9/13/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/13/07, WikipediaEditor Durin <wikidurin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The overarching problem here is that Wikipedia is collapsing. This list
> > is just a symptom of that.
> > * The Foundation has become ineffective and no longer cares about
> >    its mission and goals. There's a number of symptoms resulting from
> >    this state. One such symptom is the abysmal state of fundraising.
> >    In hard numbers, the fundraising is better. In terms of per-capita
> >    analysis, absolutely terrible. In short, the importance, scale and
> >    complexity of Wikipedia has dramatically increased while fund
> >    raising has only slightly increased. It's not keeping up, and the
> >    more that it can't keep up the worse the problems will become.
> >    Another symptom; massive turnover at the Foundation level. Though
> >    the words we've been hearing from the departing people have all
> >    been nice, any outside observer can see that an organization that
> >    loses people by the droves has serious problems, regardless of
> >    what face they attempt to put on it.
> > * This list, which used to be an effective forum and regarded by Jimbo
> >    as being THE place to do business is now ineffectual. Jimbo used to
> >    be a regular here. Looking from the perspective of number of posts
> >    per month, his participation here is down 43% this year from last year.
> > * Issues of scale are not being addressed. Analogous; Usenet newsgroups
> >    were useful when there was a small community per newsgroup. When it
> >    became thousands per newsgroup, they became useless. See
> >    "Dunbar's number" article.
> > * Prior decisions on key points are being disregarded, despite lengthy
> >    debates leading to those decisions. Precedent is meaningless now.
> >    The community has lost its ability to move forward because all
> >    decisions are immediately obsolete and carry no relevance for tightly
> >    related circumstances.
> > * General behavior on Wikipedia has led to a narrower definition of the
> >    typical Wikipedian. Wikignomes, for example, are no longer valued.
> > * While we have a crossed 2,000,000 articles, one automated study
> >    showed that about 3% of our articles...just 60,000...have anything
> >    above a few sentences and a handful of references. I.e., vast swaths
> >    of Wikipedia are very far from being encyclopedic in content and
> >    structure.
> >
> > I could go on for a *long* while about the ails of Wikipedia and
> > all the various symptoms that show its imminent demise.
> >
> > Of course, all of what I've said above will be disputed, and I'll be
> > shown by massive writings that I'm insane, criminally wrong, etc.
> > The arguments will continue ad nauseum. I do not care for rebuttals
> > at this point. I just hope people read this and take it to heart. Yes,
> > the end of Wikipedia is nigh. Yes, I'm the quack standing on a corner
> > with a sandwich board on me. Don't say I didn't warn you.
>
>
> I still find it unfortunate that (from what I have seen) you have
> reacted this negatively to the shift in consensus position on fair use
> of non-free images.
>
> I think your personal experience has come to illustrate a rather
> negative long-term trend, though, the editor / admin burnout problem.
>
> It would be easy for me to run down your itemized list and rebut a
> bunch; instead, I'll just note that growing pains are real, Wikipedia
> is not the same as it once was (at any level), and that some aspects
> of this are unfortunate at the same time as others are exhilirating.
>
> Regarding the burnout problem; I am beginning to think that the
> fundamental problem is with the personality of the people who make
> good editors and admins.  We are the types of people who, while
> basically functional in normal society, also can get very focused and
> obsessed on particular points.
>
> I spent my late teens and early 20s figuring out how to unfocus and
> acknowledge when I had worked myself into a mental corner on an issue
> or problem.  A majority of my talented friends and good coworkers
> haven't worked that out, yet, and I think that it's common on
> Wikipedia.  Being able to identify it in yourself, and listen when
> others are trying to point it out to you, is a prerequisite to dealing
> with a situation by de-escalating, de-stressing, letting go and
> letting someone else handle it for a while.  Those skills are the only
> way for people like us to keep focused on a project or issue for long
> periods of time.  If we don't have them, we tend eventually to get
> locked in to some issue or problem we cannot personally actually
> solve, and it destroys our ability to keep working on the project or
> problem.
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert at gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

People need to learn how to not push themselves past their limits - if
you're getting stressed, take a break.  If the work is too much for
you, let someone else do it.  Making an encyclopaedia is supposed to
be fun and fufilling - when it's not, take a break.

(Mind you, I got a pair of opposes on my RFA for taking 5 days off
when I became stressed in a conflict, so don't do that until you've
got your admin bit. ;))

On a more personal note, I've put a picture of myself on my userpage
given George's preference.  I hope everyone now thinks of me as a
human being.

Cheers,
WilyD