One essential problem is that once Wikipedia embraced the multipage multimedia-heavy Encarta style as what makes for a "good" article -- without a radical improvement in the editing technology -- the ease of editing has fallen drastically.
Basically all of the policy trends -- agglomeration, deletionism, hierarchy, protection, bureaucratization -- guarantee the decline of the Wikipedia community, if not the website itself.
But so it goes.
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:28 PM, David Moran fordmadoxfraud@gmail.comwrote:
Getting back to the content of the article: I get that inclusionism vs deletionism is a tired way to talk about divisions between camps of editors, and that everyone rolls their eyes when you start talking about it, but yeah, it's real. Every single person I know who was once a producing contributor but who has now left the project (including me these days, functionally--my monthly edit numbers have gone from quadruple to single digits) did so because of having the same kind of arguments with the same people over and over again about what deserved to be in the encyclopedia. Which is anecdotal and statistically insignificant, I know. But it is undeniable that Wikipedia, as a system, encourages (by its relative ease vs the alternatives) the removal of content, rather than the creation of good content, or the polishing of bad or mediocre content, the latter of which is a dreary chore. To an extent, the destruction of content is as healthy and vitally necessary a part of the Wikipedia ecosystem as its reverse.
I think a lot of attention is paid to the way the technical interface is hostile to newbies, and making that more user-friendly and democratic is certainly a concern that needs to be addressed. But I think the tendency of older users, or certain editorially minded users, to squat on the project and bludgeon newer users with policy pages rolled up into sticks is just as much if not more responsible for driving away the new users we need to replenish our ranks.
FMF
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Steven Walling <steven.walling@gmail.com
wrote:
So the content of the WSJ article may be behind a paywall, but I just did
a
cursory search of the researcher's 2009 Ph.D. thesis which was a quantitative analysis http://libresoft.es/Members/jfelipe/phd-thesis of Wikipedia
in
several languages.
I didn't see any of the graphs from the piece or any conclusions in the thesis which are equivalent to the statements made in the Journal, so
this
must be new research.
Steven
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Michael Snow <wikipedia@verizon.net
wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
books are available for years the copy of the day may be available in a library, but how about last years copy
of
the
WSJ ? Do you really think the WSJ can be found in every USA library
??
I don't know about "every" library, but libraries are about more than just books, and librarians are not unaware of the wonders of databases in our modern digital age. For those of us that use libraries, I encourage you to familiarize yourselves with the collections your library may be able to provide access to online. I've certainly relied on my library privileges for such sources many times in the course of editing Wikipedia, particularly news archives (including the Wall
Street
Journal).
--Michael Snow
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l