Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Volunteers Log Off As Wikipedia Ages

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-23-09 12:40 AM
Original message
Volunteers Log Off As Wikipedia Ages
NOVEMBER 23, 2009

Volunteers Log Off As Wikipedia Ages

By JULIA ANGWIN and GEOFFREY A. FOWLER
WSJ

Wikipedia.org is the fifth-most-popular Web site in the world, with roughly 325 million monthly visitors. But unprecedented numbers of the millions of online volunteers who write, edit and police it are quitting. That could have significant implications for the brand of democratization that Wikipedia helped to unleash over the Internet -- the empowerment of the amateur.


Volunteers have been departing the project that bills itself as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" faster than new ones have been joining, and the net losses have accelerated over the past year. In the first three months of 2009, the English-language Wikipedia suffered a net loss of more than 49,000 editors, compared to a net loss of 4,900 during the same period a year earlier, according to Spanish researcher Felipe Ortega, who analyzed Wikipedia's data on the editing histories of its more than three million active contributors in 10 languages. Eight years after Wikipedia began with a goal to provide everyone in the world free access to "the sum of all human knowledge," the declines in participation have raised questions about the encyclopedia's ability to continue expanding its breadth and improving its accuracy. Errors and deliberate insertions of false information by vandals have undermined its reliability.

Executives at the Wikimedia Foundation, which finances and oversees the nonprofit venture, acknowledge the declines, but believe they can continue to build a useful encyclopedia with a smaller pool of contributors. "We need sufficient people to do the work that needs to be done," says Sue Gardner, executive director of the foundation. "But the purpose of the project is not participation." Indeed, Wikipedia remains enormously popular among users, with the number of Web visitors growing 20% in the 12 months ending in September, according to comScore Media Metrix. Wikipedia contributors have been debating widely what is behind the declines in volunteers. One factor is that many topics already have been written about. Another is the plethora of rules Wikipedia has adopted to bring order to its unruly universe -- particularly to reduce infighting among contributors about write-ups of controversial subjects and polarizing figures.

(snip)

Wikipedia's struggles raise questions about the evolution of "crowdsourcing," one of the Internet era's most cherished principles. Crowdsourcing posits that there is wisdom in aggregating independent contributions from multitudes of Web users. It has been promoted as a new and better way for large numbers of individuals to collaborate on tasks, without the rules and hierarchies of traditional organizations. But as it matures, Wikipedia, one of the world's largest crowdsourcing initiatives, is becoming less freewheeling and more like the organizations it set out to replace. Today, its rules are spelled out across hundreds of Web pages. Increasingly, newcomers who try to edit are informed that they have unwittingly broken a rule -- and find their edits deleted, according to a study by researchers at Xerox Corp.

(snip)

Wikipedia's popularity has strained its consensus-building culture to the breaking point. Wikipedia is now a constant target for vandals who spray virtual graffiti throughout the site -- everything from political views presented as facts to jokes about their friends -- and spammers who try to insert marketing messages into articles... In 2008, Wikipedia's editors deleted one in four contributions from infrequent contributors, up sharply from one in 10 in 2005, according to data compiled by social-computing researcher Ed Chi of Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center.

(snip)


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125893981183759969.html (subscription)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-23-09 12:43 AM
Response to Original message
1. Started by pornographers
At the end of the day it's just a business, nothing altruistic about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Lane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #1
12. Criticizing Wikipedia as "just a business" is misguided and ignores its potential.
You write, "At the end of the day it's just a business, nothing altruistic about it."

Wikipedia is in no way a business. It makes all the articles on its site available for free to everyone, with no payment of a fee required. You don't even have to register or provide an email address that might be sold to marketers. Wikipedia carries no advertising. The entire income of the Wikimedia Foundation is from donations. Furthermore, the articles can be (and are) carried on other websites, which are not required to pay one penny for using them. No one is paid for creating content, either. All the images and article texts are contributed by unpaid volunteers.

In what sense is this project not altruistic?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-23-09 12:46 AM
Response to Original message
2. Wikipedia is a valuable resource, and some version of it deserves to survive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maglatinavi Donating Member (614 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-23-09 02:51 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. wikipedia
Edited on Mon Nov-23-09 02:52 AM by maglatinavi
My one experience, reading what it said about my brother was to find a lot of misinformation. I tried to have the information corrected about the family, etc. and they did a pretty bad job... so, I never bother to read anything in it....
:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: Kick it into extinction...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greennina Donating Member (295 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-23-09 12:49 AM
Response to Original message
3. Considering they don't want edits...
of course this is going to happen. The vast majority of fixes get undone by the diehards there so the new users never bother fixing anything else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-23-09 12:55 AM
Response to Original message
4. Doesn't surprise me. On the Wiki pages involving Autism Spectrum disorders...
Edited on Mon Nov-23-09 12:55 AM by Odin2005
...The Pro-Cure bigots rule and marginalize members that support Neurodiversity. On several of the pages there is a big, offensive "Autism Cure Movement" sidebar. Why bother when anything you do will be reversed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-23-09 03:03 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Indeed. There's a tyranny of mediocrity in place.
People who aren't qualified to be an expert in a field get to pretend to be an expert in such a field by virtue of a position they likely should not have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Naturyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-23-09 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. Yeah, a lot of wiki is like that.
To non-experts, a lot of pages look quite authoritative. But to someone who knows the field, many articles are rather substandard - and if you happen to be the unlucky person who knows the field, good luck building a better article when the consensus favors the substandard one. I gave up editing a particular topic after I found I couldn't keep any important changes in place. I've also started articles on a few fairly obscure topics which I have a unique knowledge of, only to see them steadily decline in quality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-23-09 12:59 AM
Response to Original message
5. I like Wikipedia
Unfortunately, certain subjects are tightly controlled by editors who think they have found their little corner of the world to act like Hitler, even when they know little about the subject or have a certain bias they want expressed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Naturyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-23-09 08:26 AM
Response to Original message
8. I like Wikipedia, but...
There are major problems built into the wiki model. I am not a wiki true believer. The idea that "the wisdom of crowds" is somehow superior to that of recognized experts is dubious at best.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-23-09 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
10. I tend to use Wikipedia like a search engine.
More for the links to other sources on a subject than a definitive source of information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-23-09 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. It certainly is a good first stop
I used to google an item and then just go through the links. Some were quite good, academic research etc. Now, Wikipedia will be the first one to stop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Lane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 02:18 AM
Response to Original message
13. Progressives should be jumping in to help edit Wikipedia
Some of the comments in this thread talk about people who care about particular articles, and how those people greatly influence the content. Well, duh! Of course that happens. What's surprising is that it takes only a few people to do this. The efforts of any such coterie can be overcome if a fairly small number of editors are willing to work at making the article comprehensive.

Wikipedia is an ideal medium for progressives. It carries no advertising, and so doesn't have the commercial constraints of the corporate media. There is no editor-in-chief who regularly has lunch with establishment politicians and who doesn't want to offend them. For these reasons, Wikipedia can be a way of disseminating information that the corporate media downplay or ignore.

Here's one example: At one point Wikipedia had a lot of information about the misdoings in the 2004 election. A small number of people succeeded in eviscerating that coverage, however. If a few election-reform advocates were to go to work on that subject, and if they were willing to do the work of developing material in an encyclopedic form (not just a preaching-to-the-choir polemic on DU), they could reverse that result and make the information more widely available.

In determining what Wikipedia's content will be, money matters not one bit and volunteer effort is all-important. That's a perfect situation for progressives. If any DUers want to pitch in, PM me and I'll be glad to help you learn your way around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC