I have been part of the wiki community for 6 years now. As I reflect on what I've seen over the years, I've developed a definite sense that the enthusiasm and energy in the community has waned. (I'm going to frame this discussion mostly in terms of the English Wikipedia, though I think it applies to most of the large, mature wikis.) It's a qualitative sense that the community is less active and excited about what they are doing today than they used to be. Some data supports this, like the declines in editor activity and administrator attrition, though I think I perceive it most directly as a change in the experience of being in the community.
At the root, I think that Wikipedia is something of a victim of it's own success. We've written the largest encyclopedia in history, become a household name, and created a top web destination. Great job. What now?
Most of our processes and policies have changed little in years. Most of the recent software changes are small and evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Compared to the days when parser functions, templates, cite, and other things were being introduced, it is rare to see changes that excite people and grow to be widely used. There are perhaps a few such things still promised on the horizon (e.g. open street maps), but mostly it seems like we've become satisfied with what we have and are slow to change. In the editing community, we see a growing interest in removing redlinks on the theory that if it hasn't been started yet how interesting can it really be, or worse deleting stubs and other incomplete articles because no one seems interested in finishing them. At the Foundation level, we see efforts to leverage Wikipedia with third party deals (e.g. Orange) and important incremental improvements (e.g. Usability), but it is rare to even consider whole new projects or have anyone articulate a grand new vision.
I'm wondering what people think about this. On the one hand we could simply accept it. We've already created a world changing encyclopedia. We can embrace Wikipedia for what it is and accept that maintaining it will not be as exciting as building it. That's the direction I think we've implicitly been following, by inertia if no other reason. We allow the policies, processes, and structures we have now to become entrenched, and focus on ensuring that the work which already exists will persist into the future. That would still be a great achievement, but it is not sexy, and I think we would continue to see a slowing and contraction in the community. Filling in details and improving prose, isn't going to easily attract volunteers.
On the other hand, I think we could try to recapture some of the vision and fire of our initial growth. Push for new tools (e.g. string functions, data storage mechanisms, new communication tools) and new projects (e.g. directory services, almanacs). There any many risks with innovating. It could backfire and damage what we have, but on the other hand having new things to do and a fresh vision could bring new energy to the community.
Personally, I look at Wikimedia and think there is still a lot of room for expansion, innovation, and growth, but I also think we've become resistant to it.
I'm wondering whether other people at the Foundation-l level perceive the same trends, and what they think about the balance between innovation and growth versus simply maintaining and solidifying the processes and products that we already have.
-Robert Rohde