Since Wikipedia grew and became more ambitious in its scope, there have been predictions of its downfall, many of them giving an estimate for the timescale of its demise. If you hunt around you may find a prediction by me that Wikipedia was unlikely to survive much beyond 2010 because I thought it would decline in populatrity. Since then Wikipedia has cemented itself into the fabric of modern culture and become particularly useful in academia, where its strengths and limitations are now well understood.
Reading the references Joseph Reagle's book I encountered this:
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/12/wikipedia_will_1.htm
Wikipedia, it appears, was destined to die within four years--by December 5, 2010, because it would be involved in an unwinnable war with marketers,
Since it's Christmas, the new year is coming, and we'll soon be bouncing out of that into a celebration of Wikipedia's first decade, perhaps now it the time to look back at the predictions of Wikipedia's demise.
What are your favorite predictions of Wikideath?
I thought I read somewhere that Rupert Murdoch seeks to shut down Wikipedia because of its "free information" threat to his and other similar media empires.
-MuZemike
On 12/21/2010 1:58 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Since Wikipedia grew and became more ambitious in its scope, there have been predictions of its downfall, many of them giving an estimate for the timescale of its demise. If you hunt around you may find a prediction by me that Wikipedia was unlikely to survive much beyond 2010 because I thought it would decline in populatrity. Since then Wikipedia has cemented itself into the fabric of modern culture and become particularly useful in academia, where its strengths and limitations are now well understood.
Reading the references Joseph Reagle's book I encountered this:
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/12/wikipedia_will_1.htm
Wikipedia, it appears, was destined to die within four years--by December 5, 2010, because it would be involved in an unwinnable war with marketers,
Since it's Christmas, the new year is coming, and we'll soon be bouncing out of that into a celebration of Wikipedia's first decade, perhaps now it the time to look back at the predictions of Wikipedia's demise.
What are your favorite predictions of Wikideath?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tuesday, December 21, 2010, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Reading the references Joseph Reagle's book I encountered this: http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/12/wikipedia_will_1.htm
Yes, I've been thinking that it would be neat to have an online debate or something over this, as I write in the conclusion of the book:
Wikipedia's status as an encyclopedia was debated from the start, even by its founders, and continues to be thought suspect by critics, particularly when a new scandal erupts as they seem to do every so often. This then prompts much discussion. In fact, the community has discussed every conceivable aspect of its identity and work. As I noted at the beginning of this book, this conversation is frequently exasperating and often humorous, but we now know it is also rather pragmatic and governed by good faith norms. Indeed, Wikipedia is an exemplar of the reflective character of open content communities. And just when arguments that Wikipedia would never amount to anything ceased, new arguments about its imminent death took their place. Based on research showing that Wikipedia contribution is slowing, journalist Stephen Foley asks, "is Wikipedia cracking up?" \acite{Foley2009siw} In 2005, law professor Eric Goldman predicted Wikipedia would "fail" in 2010 (i.e., close access or become spam ridden), repeated the prediction in 2006, and in 2009 made the claim at a conference \acite{Goldman2006wwf,Anderson2009dww}. (If you can still edit Wikipedia when you read this book, it is safe to conclude that he was wrong.)
This is a dangerous thread.
It is certainly the case that Wikipedia has exceeded all expectations (not least of those who set it up) and confounded the naysayers, Jeremiahs, and doom merchants. No doubt there's some justification in digging up falsified eschatological visions and gloating with hindsight at their folly. However, there's a problem here - and the problem is the great monstrous beast of complacency.
For if we say, "we endured even all this - and so with righteousness we will survive the ages, even unto the end", then we are in danger of creating a myth of invulnerability, based on the preservation of the wiki-saints, which can only serve to prevent us heeding genuine prophets of future dangers. Beware the true apocalypse. "Let Him That Thinketh He Standeth Take Heed Lest He Fall"
It would be far more profitable (or prophet-able) to seek to divine the undoubted demons ahead, that we might remain strong unto the end.
If I dare to be a seer, I worry about software that looks increasingly 2004 in a Facebook world.
And I'd be interested to wonder what other nightmares of the future keep the Wiki-saints in fear and trembling.
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of MuZemike Sent: 21 December 2010 20:05 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Eschatology and Wikipedia
I thought I read somewhere that Rupert Murdoch seeks to shut down Wikipedia because of its "free information" threat to his and other similar media empires.
-MuZemike
On 12/21/2010 1:58 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Since Wikipedia grew and became more ambitious in its scope, there have been predictions of its downfall, many of them giving an estimate for the timescale of its demise. If you hunt around you may find a prediction by me that Wikipedia was unlikely to survive much beyond 2010 because I thought it would decline in populatrity. Since then Wikipedia has cemented itself into the fabric of modern culture and become particularly useful in academia, where its strengths and limitations are now well understood.
Reading the references Joseph Reagle's book I encountered this:
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/12/wikipedia_will_1.htm
Wikipedia, it appears, was destined to die within four years--by December 5, 2010, because it would be involved in an unwinnable war with marketers,
Since it's Christmas, the new year is coming, and we'll soon be bouncing out of that into a celebration of Wikipedia's first decade, perhaps now it the time to look back at the predictions of Wikipedia's demise.
What are your favorite predictions of Wikideath?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 21 December 2010 19:58, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Reading the references Joseph Reagle's book I encountered this: http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/12/wikipedia_will_1.htm Wikipedia, it appears, was destined to die within four years--by December 5, 2010, because it would be involved in an unwinnable war with marketers,
Yes. Has anyone been in touch with Mr Goldman and asked for an update? Or, rather, has anyone not?
- d.
On 21 December 2010 19:58, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/12/wikipedia_will_1.htm
Prof Goldman has followed up saying he was wrong, though we still of course suck, though he still consults Wikipedia daily:
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/01/my_2005_predict.htm
- d.
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:56 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 December 2010 19:58, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/12/wikipedia_will_1.htm
Prof Goldman has followed up saying he was wrong, though we still of course suck, though he still consults Wikipedia daily:
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/01/my_2005_predict.htm
- d.
I disagree with "though we still of course suck". I think he makes reasonably on point useful criticisms.
Several of them are things we've said internally, on this list and elsewhere...
On 19/01/2011 20:33, George Herbert wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:56 AM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 December 2010 19:58, Tony Sidawaytonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/12/wikipedia_will_1.htm
Prof Goldman has followed up saying he was wrong, though we still of course suck, though he still consults Wikipedia daily:
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/01/my_2005_predict.htm
- d.
I disagree with "though we still of course suck". I think he makes reasonably on point useful criticisms.
Several of them are things we've said internally, on this list and elsewhere...
There's still some spin in the punditry, though. Taking "celebrity" pages and "long tail" pages as two antipodal cases, as Goldman does, is OK, as long as you don't insist that the rate of updating should be comparable. The long tail pages are those that a print encyclopedia would think twice about revising for a new edition. They are there to say something intelligible about a topic; traditional encyclopedia compilers tended to copy them from an older encyclopedia. We have huge numbers of them - one of our strengths - and trying to turn them into one of our weaknesses by glib talk is a bit adversarial, really.
Charles
Yeah, we suck. However, we must be doing *something* right, otherwise Wikipedia wouldn't have achieved the success it is currently enjoying. I think that was what Jimbo was referring to in his last interview with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show.
-MuZemike
On 1/19/2011 2:33 PM, George Herbert wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:56 AM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 December 2010 19:58, Tony Sidawaytonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/12/wikipedia_will_1.htm
Prof Goldman has followed up saying he was wrong, though we still of course suck, though he still consults Wikipedia daily:
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/01/my_2005_predict.htm
- d.
I disagree with "though we still of course suck". I think he makes reasonably on point useful criticisms.
Several of them are things we've said internally, on this list and elsewhere...