RSSWas Wikipedia Just a Fad?
By Ed Oswald | Published October 11, 2007, 2:02 PM
Recent data compiled by one of Wikipedia's larger contributors seems to indicate that after a long history of rapid growth, interest in contributing to the effort seems to be waning.
Unfortunately, a truer idea of how Wikipedia is doing is not possible because the statistics page has not been updated in over a year. However, one Wikipedia contributor has taken it upon himself to analyze the data to gain some perspective on the state of the project.
Robert Rohde -- known as "Dragons_flight" -- found the results surprising. Out of a sample of 100,000 articles, he found an overall decline in just about every aspect of the service.
For example, new account registrations are down a quarter since earlier this year. This decline in new editors has also resulted in a decline in the editing of articles -- some 17 percent -- and article deletions, down about 25 percent. Also down were user blocks, down 30 percent, and uploads, down 10 percent.
There were some exceptions to the rule. The article creation rate was up 25 percent and image deletions rose some 80 percent. But as a whole, the user base of Wikipedia seems to be less active.
Rohde said little of why he thought the user base of the popular social encyclopedia site seemed to be less involved, although he did note that the switch seemed to coincide with the discovery that a user known as 'Essjay' was found out to have falsified information about himself and his credentials, which was widely covered in the tech media.
"I'm not going to launch into an extended discussion of what's wrong with Wikipedia, but I do think we need to be paying attention to these trends and taking steps to intervene where possible," Rohde said.
No statistics were provided for other websites within the Wikipedia network.
The problems with Wikipedia could also come down to an increasingly large schism in the site's community, with two groups at odds over what information should and should not be included.
Those known as the "deletionists" seem quick with the delete key and have high standards for "notability." However "inclusionists" disagree, saying that articles shouldn't be deleted quickly because they may be expanded later, pointing out many articles are written over several edits.
Such arguments have increased across the site's discussion pages in recent months, and that could have something to do with the decrease in participation as well.
The reason we are seeing this 'decline in contributions' but increase in 'new articles' is because the content of wikipedia is reaching maturity. We will inevitibly see less and less modification as time goes on because the articles will already be created, formatted, and close to complete.
There is less contribution because there is less need for contribution. Years ago, 50% of my searches had no wiki article or incomplete info. Today, 99% of my searches have complete and accurate information. If I am searching for a specific person, even, or object, I will even search Wikipedia directly, before using google, becuase I know I will usually get a complete article as a result versus wading through hundreds of google results looking for something similar. I WANT to contribute to Wikipedia, and have, but there is simply less need for contributions today. Look at the Microsoft article. It has 500 edits since March 2007. What can you possibly add or change? I get EXCITED when I find a missing or incomplete article because that means I get the opportunity to contribute to such an awesome project. I've created/edited several articles and hope I can contribute even more in the future.
The only issue I have with wikipedia is with the 'deletionists'. I believe all information should be kept until it is proven to have no value.
Wikipedia rocks. Interest in contributing is far from waning. People use Wikipedia today more than ever.
Score: 0
|Why delete anything?
Many articles in Wikipedia simply need rewriting or a tweak here or there. The sad reality as we've experienced personally is that there are some moderators who delete entries instead of labeling them incorrect.
People get discouraged and go elsewhere to write and read about information.
The sad reality is we need Wikipedia more than Wikipedia wants us.
Score: 0
|Maybe if there was some sort of qualification process to screen out idiots, wikipedia could be relied upon. Then again, that could apply to the Internet in general couldn't it? :)
Score: 0
|I say this article is bulls*** and utter crap.
Ofcourse the growth is waning, because now every damn word and subject known to man is in wikipedia, so now it is just updates...
What a sherlock for a reporter.
Score: 0
|Wikis is fine, nonwithstading damn lies--err 'statistics'...
Score: 0
|Mostly there is accurate info in there..
I tried to update a bands discography.. copying and pasting info from the bands official site.. adding various old demos and releases that was missing.. for some reason someone just pulled the info added without even checking the facts first.. probably because im not a member on there..
I know people falsify info.. like my cousin put in fishpants, pants made by fish skin or something silly like this just to see how long it would last :P
But if you put time in to input accurate info and then it gets pulled.. then you just dont feel like *trying* to contribute anymore.
Score: 0
|I use the wiki now more than ever, while the content may not be increasing at the rate it once did, there is only so much content to write about and after a certain point it will decline. I think it better to ask how the information in the wiki overall is being used. While you have to be careful and not believe 100% of everything you read in a wiki, usually it is correct to a point, depending on the subject matter.
Score: 0
|Eighteen months ago I may have seen 2 Wikipedia articles. Now I reference it several times a week. If I am googleing for information and I see a Wikipedia link it's the first one I click.
I do realize it was created by people so it will never be perfect, could very well be biased, and might have just been vandalized. We have a great source of information in Wikipedia, but that is no reason to believe you have been relived the responsibility to use your own brain. If you think anything you read, anywhere, is "gospel truth" you are just giving up on thinking for yourself.
It's is a good sign that editing has slowed down. That is what should happen as the quality and completeness of the articles improves.
Score: 0
|Does the overall decline in "every aspect of the service" include the number of visits to Wikipedia? That's the only statistic that counts. Everything else is just a consequence of that statistic.
Score: 0
|It's a shame that it's not developed to allow the very things it claims to want, for example:
Better handling of references to external documents so that every word can be traced back to the source;
Better graphical representation of the documents edit status. For example, the text colour on text that has the most recent edits could be #ffffff working it's way to something like #c0c0c0 for each older edit. Would be easy to see what people have been adding and changing;
Better editor - wiki editing is like using "Wordstar" (etc), a graphical user interface would get well educated but non-technical people on board; and
In-text comments - the "comments page" idea is OK, but specific queries should be marked "in page" with a "???" icon linked to a "press to reveal" in page discussion about whatever fact is being disputed.
Score: 0
|The primary indicator of quality people should look at is the Featured Article count.
Jack
Administrator
Wikipedia
Score: 0
|But of course its slowed down
0-99% fast
as deminicus states "after the initial info dump ..."
99%-100% slow
well people have to find something new to write about - when they see virtually every topic already covered
I like wikipedia and use it a lot
Score: 0
|i think terminal velocity has something to do with it also. The initial info dump is over, it isn't hard to imagine that it would decline.
Score: 0
|In one word: "Yes"
Score: 0
|Wikipedia's usefulness is always understated.
Score: 0
|Wikipedia's reliability was always overstated, until the truth came out earlier this year how arbitrary it all is.
As the article states: the switch seemed to coincide with the discovery that a user known as 'Essjay' was found out to have falsified information about himself and his credentials, which was widely covered in the tech media.
There's a good reason that institutions of higher learning forbid the use of Wikipedia as a reference. Whether the entries are accurate or not, no one has any confidence that they are.
Score: 0
|However, people do cite sources in Wikipedia and changes that are made by detractors who falsify information are also logged and can be rolled back. It's the researchers who encounter false information who are responsible for reporting it.
Institutions of higher learning should penalize students for using wrong information, not for using Wikipedia. Any resource should be fact checked as an outdated copy could provide incorrect also.
And also - if someone falsifies information about themselves on Wikipedia - is it safe to say that they are less likely to be the subject of an essay?
Score: 0
|I always check wikipedia first but never last. It introduces me to the topic, gives me a feel for what is contentious about it and then I check elsewhere.
Mark
Score: 0
|Most of the Wikipedia articles I have looked at in the past week have all been properly updated, so I am not worried about Wikipedia being a fad.
How many people around here actually have an account they use on Wikipedia? I am honestly going to guess not that many...
Score: 0
|Or maybe all the subjects people know a lot about have already been covered.
Score: 0
|Socialism's undoing -- you can't be social without people. And people suck. Therefore Socialism will eventually suck, no matter the well-intentioned.
Score: 0
|You can't be democratic without people either. Democracy clearly sucks for the same reasons. :D
Score: 0
|I'll take Democracy over Socialism, (which is really just Communism lite), any day thanks.
Score: 0
|I will take socialized health care any day of the week rather than the crap system in the USA
Score: 0
|I wasn't arguing for any particular system - clearly a benevolent dictatorship with me as Supreme Emperor is the best of all possible systems. :p I was simply pointing out that the "logic" used to come to the original poster's conclusion was retarded.
Score: 0
|Not that I disagree with you, but what does this have to do with the article? Now everyone beneath you is arguing over the merits of socialism versus democracy instead of discussing the article.
That said, here's an article I think is good for deletionists--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Score: 0
|If you knew anything about it you would not be saying that. Ask the people in the UK what they think of it. Ask the Canadians that pay to come here for service what they think about it. If you are not sick socialized medicine is awesome. If you have serious health issues I will take the US system hands down.
Score: 0
|When you have to wait 3 years for a replacement kidney you wont like it so much. Every system unfortunately has its flaws. The moral of the story is life sucks unless you are wealthy...and even that has its downsides...but i'll take it over suckin' d for c anyday.
Score: 0
|I like your "benevolent dictatorship" idea. You know the only way to really live happily in a Monarchy is to become the monarch by whatever means, otherwise forget it.
Score: 0
|see you in cuba.
Score: 0
|I would rather decide what doctors I see, what care I receive, and when I receive it than enjoy your ideal of "free" healthcare.
Enjoy standing in line for your "tooth pulling pliers" because it takes too long to get an appointment.
Score: 0
|This from the guy who's already signed up for Microsoft healthcare.
Score: 0
|Yes - easy if you have the money and/or resources!
--->I would rather decide what doctors I see, what care I receive, and when I receive it than enjoy your ideal of "free" healthcare.
Score: 0
|Yes - easy if you have the money and/or resources!
So because I have money/resources, I get my rights to chose my care taken away in the name of healthcare for the poor?
We already have a system for that, sure, it's broken, but socializing sure as hell ain't the answer.
Score: 0
|Haha...
Good one.
Score: 0
|Democracy and Socialism/Communism are not mutually exclusive. Direct democracy is probably the quickest route to collective ownership.
Score: 0
|"life sucks unless you are wealthy."
If you think more money will make you happy then your life will suck.
Score: 0
|As always, the day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is the day they make a vacuum cleaner.
Score: 0
|An elitist group scared away the world.
Score: 0
|sounds familiar...
Score: 0
|im a college student and most professors have banned wikipedia as a valid reference or citation. I would guess this is very wide spread in colleges and must be the reason.
Score: 0
|Ironic... Wikipedia articles have a well-known history of having a liberal perspective/bias to them. Colleges are notoriously liberal in their own right with professors running around claiming to be the foremost intellectuals on everything.
So philosophical question for everyone to ponder: why would they ban something they, in fact, create?
Score: 0
|WIKI is considered not reliable source of information - full of error and non verifiable fact and source.
Most of High school in WA prohibits WIKI as source
Score: 0
|choice of two evils really, does one want a 40 page essay that is 80-90% accurate,
or a 2 page essay that is 98% accurate (and of course take 1000% longer to do because of the huge amounts of extra time needed for verification)
although from my experience i have found Wiki to be of great material, and very accurate considering, and why they don't create a DVD version (or more to the point, why is creating a DVD version causing so many problems with different countries beets the hell out of me)
why is it, countries want to change history, every country has done something bad, but why do they want to re-write the events, jesus, it's those events that will help create a better future,
Score: 0
|can't one check the sources listed in the wiki? They usually suppy ample amounts of them.
Just use the sources for the paper, the ones you got from wiki.
Problem solved.
Score: 0
|I think that what you've said explains the difficulties with a DVD version.
If a DVD version is made, the information is locked at a point and the chance for revisions to be made is nullified. A locked version would draw unfair negative comments due to inaccurate information whereas the online version would simply be moderated.
Score: 0
|