Is Wikipedia dying?

[Sage Ross]

This article by Evgeny Morozov, nominally a review of Andrew Lih's
book "The Wikipedia Revolution", is worth reading:

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR34.6/morozov.php

-Sage

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Keegan Paul]

Why do Wikipedians spend countless hours improving the site, often doing
mundane, repetitive tasks they would never do for money?
*
*
*Simple.  If I got paid, I'd quit.
*

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Charles Matthews]

Sage Ross wrote:
> This article by Evgeny Morozov, nominally a review of Andrew Lih's
> book "The Wikipedia Revolution", is worth reading:
>
> http://www.bostonreview.net/BR34.6/morozov.php
>  
Rumours much exaggerated. What it says in the penultimate para is false:
"It needs a major upgrade". WP actually needs numerous minor upgrades.
The trouble is that Lih's approach is rather from the fluffy end,
anyway. Anyone who engages with the more scholarly end would say: "I can
see that a huge amount of work still needs to go into improving the
content; but on the other hand, as a first draft and technical approach
to an Internet encyclopedia, this site has much more going for it than
the more acrid debates would indicate".

Charles


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Gerard-2]

2009/11/5 Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews@...>:

> Rumours much exaggerated. What it says in the penultimate para is false:
> "It needs a major upgrade". WP actually needs numerous minor upgrades.
> The trouble is that Lih's approach is rather from the fluffy end,
> anyway. Anyone who engages with the more scholarly end would say: "I can
> see that a huge amount of work still needs to go into improving the
> content; but on the other hand, as a first draft and technical approach
> to an Internet encyclopedia, this site has much more going for it than
> the more acrid debates would indicate".


The history of the success of Wikipedia: [[Worse is better]].


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[The Cunctator]

It really is interesting how few people not involved in Wikipedia get the
dynamic.

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 5:55 AM, David Gerard <dgerard@...> wrote:

> 2009/11/5 Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews@...>:
>
> > Rumours much exaggerated. What it says in the penultimate para is false:
> > "It needs a major upgrade". WP actually needs numerous minor upgrades.
> > The trouble is that Lih's approach is rather from the fluffy end,
> > anyway. Anyone who engages with the more scholarly end would say: "I can
> > see that a huge amount of work still needs to go into improving the
> > content; but on the other hand, as a first draft and technical approach
> > to an Internet encyclopedia, this site has much more going for it than
> > the more acrid debates would indicate".
>
>
> The history of the success of Wikipedia: [[Worse is better]].
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Steve Bennett-8]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Sage Ross <ragesoss+wikipedia@...> wrote:
> This article by Evgeny Morozov, nominally a review of Andrew Lih's
> book "The Wikipedia Revolution", is worth reading:

Although I kept wanting to scream "citation needed" at him. "There is
something unappealing", to use his words, about someone who apparently
doesn't know all that much about Wikipedia reviewing and dismissing a
book about it, then proceeding to pontificate, with no evidence to
back it up, about its failings.

Steve

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[The Cunctator]

Well, two things people can do is improve [[Evgeny Morozov]] and [[Claude
Chabrol]].

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 6:17 AM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp@...> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Sage Ross <ragesoss+wikipedia@...<ragesoss%2Bwikipedia@...>>
> wrote:
> > This article by Evgeny Morozov, nominally a review of Andrew Lih's
> > book "The Wikipedia Revolution", is worth reading:
>
> Although I kept wanting to scream "citation needed" at him. "There is
> something unappealing", to use his words, about someone who apparently
> doesn't know all that much about Wikipedia reviewing and dismissing a
> book about it, then proceeding to pontificate, with no evidence to
> back it up, about its failings.
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Surreptitiousness]

The Cunctator wrote:
> Well, two things people can do is improve [[Evgeny Morozov]] and [[Claude
> Chabrol]].
>
>  
Or send a {{sofixit}} to the author of the review.

I think what annoys me about Wikipedia critics is that they hold the
very solution to all their criticisms in their power. Get in and change it.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[The Cunctator]

To be honest the problem of rulecruft and an oppressive bureaucracy is not
something that {{sofixit}} works well for.

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 7:03 AM, Surreptitiousness <
surreptitious.wikipedian@...> wrote:

> The Cunctator wrote:
> > Well, two things people can do is improve [[Evgeny Morozov]] and [[Claude
> > Chabrol]].
> >
> >
> Or send a {{sofixit}} to the author of the review.
>
> I think what annoys me about Wikipedia critics is that they hold the
> very solution to all their criticisms in their power. Get in and change it.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Surreptitiousness]

The Cunctator wrote:
> To be honest the problem of rulecruft and an oppressive bureaucracy is not
> something that {{sofixit}} works well for.
>  
It does in the sense that if you engage with the community, become a
part of it, you can hope to change it.

> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 7:03 AM, Surreptitiousness <
> surreptitious.wikipedian@...> wrote:
>
>  
>> The Cunctator wrote:
>>    
>>> Well, two things people can do is improve [[Evgeny Morozov]] and [[Claude
>>> Chabrol]].
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>> Or send a {{sofixit}} to the author of the review.
>>
>> I think what annoys me about Wikipedia critics is that they hold the
>> very solution to all their criticisms in their power. Get in and change it.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@...
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>    
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>  

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[The Cunctator]

but that kind of change requires long, tedious engagement with the lessons
of history pointing toward failure. A little different from fleshing out the
Claude Chabrol entry.

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Surreptitiousness <
surreptitious.wikipedian@...> wrote:

> The Cunctator wrote:
> > To be honest the problem of rulecruft and an oppressive bureaucracy is
> not
> > something that {{sofixit}} works well for.
> >
> It does in the sense that if you engage with the community, become a
> part of it, you can hope to change it.
> > On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 7:03 AM, Surreptitiousness <
> > surreptitious.wikipedian@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> The Cunctator wrote:
> >>
> >>> Well, two things people can do is improve [[Evgeny Morozov]] and
> [[Claude
> >>> Chabrol]].
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Or send a {{sofixit}} to the author of the review.
> >>
> >> I think what annoys me about Wikipedia critics is that they hold the
> >> very solution to all their criticisms in their power. Get in and change
> it.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> WikiEN-l@...
> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l@...
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Fred Bauder-2]

> This article by Evgeny Morozov, nominally a review of Andrew Lih's
> book "The Wikipedia Revolution", is worth reading:
>
> http://www.bostonreview.net/BR34.6/morozov.php
>
> -Sage

Lots of interesting observations, but made by someone who is not that
familiar with how Wikipedia works. Lih's book is good, but sometimes it's
like he wasn't there; and, of course, he wasn't, at least not when
certain decisions were made. If his book were a Wikipedia article, most
of it would be edited out because there often is no reliable source other
than his own observations and opinions.

The title of this thread is totally weird. Why would two summaries of
Wikipedia's history and problems by two individuals, one of whom is an
outside observer, and one a less than omniscient inside observer, result
in such a question? We answer the question everyday, by continuing to
create and edit new articles and tending to administrative tasks.

Fred



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Sage Ross]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 8:29 AM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud@...> wrote:

>
> The title of this thread is totally weird. Why would two summaries of
> Wikipedia's history and problems by two individuals, one of whom is an
> outside observer, and one a less than omniscient inside observer, result
> in such a question? We answer the question everyday, by continuing to

My bad.  The title of the thread was the title of Morozov's blog post
point out the review:
http://neteffect.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/11/04/is_wikipedia_dying

which I confused with the title of the review itself.

-Sage

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Charles Matthews]

Fred Bauder wrote:
> The title of this thread is totally weird.
"Is MySpace dying?" seems to be a standard occurrence of this
eye-catching meme. As in also Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, Google,
Microsoft. The top Google hit for "Is Apple dying?" is an amusing query
from 2002 (rant about no floppy drivers for the iMac).

Charlews


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Carcharoth]

Or pick a stub from a blue link on this list and expand it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carcharoth/AMNH_Bulletin_author_list

Dunno quite why I did that list, but I was curious as to how many
Wikipedia articles there would be for the people listed at the author
list for that journal (Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural
History). Turns out the answer is "quite a lot". I'm impressed,
actually.

Some of the names are eye-catching as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephraim_Porter_Felt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashford_Dean
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outram_Bangs

I would say to people wanting to help improve articles, is to find
something you are interested in, and start from there. There's no
shortage of things to do.

Carcharoth

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 11:20 AM, The Cunctator <cunctator@...> wrote:

> Well, two things people can do is improve [[Evgeny Morozov]] and [[Claude
> Chabrol]].
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 6:17 AM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp@...> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Sage Ross <ragesoss+wikipedia@...<ragesoss%2Bwikipedia@...>>
>> wrote:
>> > This article by Evgeny Morozov, nominally a review of Andrew Lih's
>> > book "The Wikipedia Revolution", is worth reading:
>>
>> Although I kept wanting to scream "citation needed" at him. "There is
>> something unappealing", to use his words, about someone who apparently
>> doesn't know all that much about Wikipedia reviewing and dismissing a
>> book about it, then proceeding to pontificate, with no evidence to
>> back it up, about its failings.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@...
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ken Arromdee]

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, Surreptitiousness wrote:
>> Well, two things people can do is improve [[Evgeny Morozov]] and [[Claude
>> Chabrol]].
> Or send a {{sofixit}} to the author of the review.
>
> I think what annoys me about Wikipedia critics is that they hold the
> very solution to all their criticisms in their power. Get in and change it.

Perhaps I should write an essay SODONTFIXIT about why "so fix it" is a bad
idea.  For one thing, most people pointing to errors don't claim that
Wikipedia is bad because it contains one particular error.  Rather, they
claim that that error is representative of other errors (which they may
not even be able to find, let alone fix).  Sometimes, they may even be using
the error to point to a systematic problem; obviously fixing the single error
won't fix the systematic problem.

It also leads to some problems we're already familiar with with BLPs, such as
having to constantly watch the article for the rest of your life to make sure
the fix stays.

Also, learning how to edit articles without being reverted can take an
incredible amount of time and bureaucracy-navigating if the user is unlucky
enough to have picked articles that people are watching.  (Can you describe
the conflict of interest rules without looking them up?  What about
notability?  And how can a new person defend against rules lawyers anyway?)

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ryan Delaney]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Sage Ross
<ragesoss+wikipedia@...<ragesoss%2Bwikipedia@...>
> wrote:

> This article by Evgeny Morozov, nominally a review of Andrew Lih's
> book "The Wikipedia Revolution", is worth reading:
>
> http://www.bostonreview.net/BR34.6/morozov.php
>
> -Sage
>
>
I've long puzzled over why journalists constantly post editorials
criticizing Wikipedia and proclaiming that it will never take off. I thought
that eventually we'd win them over.

Then I realized why this will never happen.

News media is a business. We are a threat to their model. Therefore, it's
important to them to convince their readers that Wikipedia is unreliable,
whether it is or not. They will never stop criticizing and attacking us as
long as  we undermine their bottom line.

As such I have no interest in news print or journalist opinions of
Wikipedia. Their paychecks depend on our failure. Pay them no heed.

- causa sui
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Nathan Awrich]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney@...> wrote:

>> This article by Evgeny Morozov, nominally a review of Andrew Lih's
>> book "The Wikipedia Revolution", is worth reading:
>>
>> http://www.bostonreview.net/BR34.6/morozov.php
>>
>> -Sage
>>
>>
> I've long puzzled over why journalists constantly post editorials
> criticizing Wikipedia and proclaiming that it will never take off. I thought
> that eventually we'd win them over.
>
> Then I realized why this will never happen.
>
> News media is a business. We are a threat to their model. Therefore, it's
> important to them to convince their readers that Wikipedia is unreliable,
> whether it is or not. They will never stop criticizing and attacking us as
> long as  we undermine their bottom line.
>
> As such I have no interest in news print or journalist opinions of
> Wikipedia. Their paychecks depend on our failure. Pay them no heed.
>
> - causa sui
> _____________

I'm not sure about that; journalists are no more a monolith than are
Wikipedians. I think its just human nature; I don't have the citations
handy, but quite a few studies have shown that we focus much more
intently on the negative elements of anything than we do their
positive counterparts, regardless of relative weight.

Just as much, we can't refuse to acknowledge the fact that Wikipedia
does have its problems - journalists may miss the scope, and some lose
the plot entirely, but by and large the issues they identify are real:
we do place a high bar on new contributions, we do have a problem with
battlefield editing, we are vulnerable to interest groups and
individuals and companies can be harmed by inaccurate information
about them that we host. The only problem we are currently addressing
in any coordinated way is usability - on the other problems, progress
proceeds at geologic speed. This is a function of leadership - the
Foundation has it, and the projects do not.

Nathan

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Judson Dunn-2]

Yep, pretty soon the only free repository of facts from care bears to
benzene will probably become obsolete. In the future people just won't
need information as much as now. This decline will happen because, of
course, people aren't paying attention to the sort of topics they
*ought* to be paying attention to... If only someone was in charge...

I don't even think the bureaucracy is that bad honestly, but it's
encouraging that people do.

Wikipedia will surely change, as all things do, but the repository
will remain in some form, probably for a *very* long time.

Judson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cohesion

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Surreptitiousness]

The Cunctator wrote:
> but that kind of change requires long, tedious engagement with the lessons
> of history pointing toward failure. A little different from fleshing out the
> Claude Chabrol entry.
>  
Okay.  I'm unsure why the sofixit couldn't have applied to the
complainant fleshing out the Claude Chabrol entry in the first place. I
still can't quite understand how difficult it is to understand that if
there is a problem on Wikipedia, it can be fixed by the person who spots
it, but perhaps on that we differ.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l