On 20/12/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I've been here nearly four years and don't think it has. It's MUCH BIGGER now, but that's a different thing.
- d.
As someone also here for nearly four years, and an admin for over 3 years, I disagree. I think it has changed a lot, even if it is simply a natural evolution due to the modus operandi of the project. Even in the sphere of Irish-related articles (my area of frenetic activity when I was editing more) things seem to have become less pleasant - there were not so many problems back in the day with disputes say, over articles relating to Northern Ireland.
I occasionally come across articles that used to be coherent and useful, and whatever about having more info, or better sourced (though not necessarily), many are a bit of a mess now. Indeed some articles have even been deleted entirely, merged when inappropriate, split for POV reasons (the well known stereotype, still goes on as long as the instigators are the more persistent), etc.
There's other great work still going on, but already I see those enthusiastic editors who are working frenetically building up articles just as I did, also starting to get bogged down in unconstructive discussion and disputes. I will guarantee the enthusiasm cannot last in the face of that, even if said editors avoid a complete burnout or final dispute that gets out of hand.
Ultimately, one of the problems is that there is only so far one is going to go as a volunteer in dealing with persistent disputing editors. Realistically, those who are more persistent are always going to win out, and they are likely to be those who are less rational. And who is actually right (i.e. not only is editing from NPOV, but actually has a clue about the subject matter and has the correct facts) is even less relevant!
I'd like to see the modus operandi of Wikipedia change, but then, it probably wouldn't be Wikipedia then!
Still, I'm certainly staying up to date on things and hoping for a swing to the positive.
Zoney