What I absolutely *love* in this piece is that it's by our own GLAM-Wiki
podcast host Andrew Lih and it's in the New York f***ing Times! Yay!
Plus I totally agree with his lead point, which holds for all languages: "One
of the biggest threats it faces is the rise of smartphones as the dominant
personal computing device." If I had to pick the one thing that would stop
me editing Wikipedia projects, then yes, this *is* that thing. Though I
truly love Wikidata and I do feel strongly about the Gendergap, I agree
with him and feel that the biggest threat to the Wikiverse is the demise of
the desktop.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com
wrote:
> Hoi,
> What I absolutely hate in this piece is something that has been obvious for
> so long: "... , or to groups devoted to non-English languages?". It is the
> lack of attention and funding that has discriminated against other
> languages. The attitude of "when it works for the big Wikipedias, it will
> work for the small Wikipedias" is manifestly wrong and there are plenty
> examples to prove the point.
>
> In the app where information is to be had from Wikidata they use for
> instance descriptions. There are several problems with them.
>
> - They do not translate
> - They do not get updated
> - They distract people from adding statements that would improve
> automated descriptions.
>
> There is no single argument why we should not use automated descriptions
> and there are plenty why we should. To start we support over 280 languages
> and most of them are best served with automated descriptions.
>
> This is only one example where positive discrimination for English is
> actually holding us back.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 21 June 2015 at 20:47, MZMcBride <z(a)mzmcbride.com
wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > This op-ed by Andrew Lih appeared in today's New York Times. I'm
sending
> > it here in case anyone is interested in reading or discussing it. I
> > enjoyed the piece; congrats to Mr. Lih on getting this published!
> >
> > MZMcBride
> >
> > ----
> >
> >
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/can-wikipedia-survive.html
> >
> > Can Wikipedia Survive?
> > By Andrew Lih
> > June 20, 2015
> >
> > WASHINGTON — WIKIPEDIA has come a long way since it started in 2001. With
> > around 70,000 volunteers editing in over 100 languages, it is by far the
> > world’s most popular reference site. Its future is also uncertain.
> >
> > One of the biggest threats it faces is the rise of smartphones as the
> > dominant personal computing device. A recent Pew Research Center report
> > found that 39 of the top 50 news sites received more traffic from mobile
> > devices than from desktop and laptop computers, sales of which have
> > declined for years.
> >
> > This is a challenge for Wikipedia, which has always depended on
> > contributors hunched over keyboards searching references, discussing
> > changes and writing articles using a special markup code. Even before
> > smartphones were widespread, studies consistently showed that these are
> > daunting tasks for newcomers. “Not even our youngest and most
> > computer-savvy participants accomplished these tasks with ease,” a 2009
> > user test concluded. The difficulty of bringing on new volunteers has
> > resulted in seven straight years of declining editor participation.
> >
> > In 2005, during Wikipedia’s peak years, there were months when more than
> > 60 editors were made administrator — a position with special privileges
> in
> > editing the English-language edition. For the past year, it has sometimes
> > struggled to promote even one per month.
> >
> > The pool of potential Wikipedia editors could dry up as the number of
> > mobile users keeps growing; it’s simply too hard to manipulate complex
> > code on a tiny screen.
> >
> > The nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation, which oversees Wikipedia’s operations
> > but is not directly involved in content, is investigating solutions. Some
> > ideas include touch-screen tools that would let Wikipedia editors sift
> > through information and share content from their phones.
> >
> > What has not suffered is fund-raising. The foundation, based in San
> > Francisco, has a budget of roughly $60 million. How to fairly distribute
> > resources has long been a topic of debate. How much should go to regional
> > chapters and affiliates, or to groups devoted to non-English languages?
> > How much should stay in the foundation to develop software, create mobile
> > apps and maintain infrastructure?
> >
> > These tensions run through the community. Last year the foundation took
> > the unprecedented step of forcing the installation of new software on the
> > German-language Wikipedia. The German editors had shown their independent
> > streak by resisting an earlier update to the site’s user interface.
> > Against the wishes of veteran editors, the foundation installed a new way
> > to view multimedia content and then set up an Orwellian-sounding
> > “superprotect” feature to block obstinate administrators from changing it
> > back.
> >
> > The latest clash had repercussions in the election this year for seats to
> > the Wikimedia Foundation’s board of trustees — the most influential
> > positions that volunteers can hold. The election — a record 5,000 voters
> > turned out, nearly three times the number from the previous election —
> was
> > a rebuke to the status quo; all three incumbents up for re-election were
> > defeated, replaced by critics of the superprotect measures. Two other
> > members will leave the 10-member board at the end of this year.
> Meanwhile,
> > the foundation’s new executive director, Lila Tretikov, has been hiring
> > developers from the world of open-source technology, and their lack of
> > experience with Wikipedia content has concerned some veterans.
> >
> > Could the pressure from mobile, and the internal tensions, tear Wikipedia
> > apart? A world without it seems unimaginable, but consider the fate of
> > other online communities. Founded in 1985, at the dawn of the Internet,
> > the Well, the self-proclaimed “birthplace of the online community
> > movement,” hosted an influential cast of dot-com luminaries on its
> > electronic bulletin board discussion forums. By 1995, it was in steep
> > decline, and today it is a shell of its former self. Blogging, celebrated
> > a decade ago as pioneering an exciting new form of personal writing, has
> > decreased significantly in the social-media age.
> >
> > These are existential challenges, but they can still be addressed. There
> > is no other significant alternative to Wikipedia, and good will toward
> the
> > project — a remarkable feat of altruism — could hardly be higher. If the
> > foundation needed more donations, it could surely raise them.
> >
> > The real challenges for Wikipedia are to resolve the governance disputes
> —
> > the tensions among foundation employees, longtime editors trying to
> > protect their prerogatives, and new volunteers trying to break in — and
> to
> > design a mobile-oriented editing environment. One board member, María
> > Sefidari, warned that “some communities have become so change-resistant
> > and innovation-averse” that they risk staying “stuck in 2006 while the
> > rest of the Internet is thinking about 2020 and the next three billion
> > users.”
> >
> > For the last few years, the Smithsonian Institution, the National
> Archives
> > and other world-class institutions, libraries and museums have
> > collaborated with Wikipedia’s volunteers to improve accuracy, quality of
> > references and depth of multimedia on article pages. This movement dates
> > from 2010, when the British Museum saw that Wikipedia’s visitor traffic
> to
> > articles about its artifacts was five times greater than that of the
> > museum’s own website. Grasping the power of Wikipedia to amplify its
> > reach, the museum invited a Wikipedia editor to work with its curatorial
> > staff. Since then, similar parternships have been set up with groups like
> > the Cochrane Collaboration, a nonprofit organization that focuses on
> > evidence-based health care, and the Centers for Disease Control and
> > Prevention.
> >
> > These are vital opportunities for Wikipedia to tap external expertise and
> > enlarge its base of editors. It is also the most promising way to solve
> > the considerable and often-noted gender gap among Wikipedia editors; in
> > 2011, less than 15 percent were women.
> >
> > The worst scenario is an end to Wikipedia, not with a bang but with a
> > whimper: a long, slow decline in participation, accuracy and usefulness
> > that is not quite dramatic enough to jolt the community into making
> > meaningful reforms.
> >
> > No effort in history has gotten so much information at so little cost
> into
> > the hands of so many — a feat made all the more remarkable by the absence
> > of profit and owners. In an age of Internet giants, this most selfless of
> > websites is worth saving.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Andrew Lih is an associate professor of journalism at American University
> > and the author of “The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies
> > Created the World’s Greatest Encyclopedia.”
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>