[Foundation-l] Growth vs. maintenance

[Robert Rohde]

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