There has been anecdotal evidence that Wikipedia’s prospects have shifted recently. Deterioriting article quality, backslide of featured articles, pages unnecessarily put in the deletion process.

But this graph provides definitive, sobering proof of something gone awry:

(UPDATE: n.b. the chart is for en.wikipedia.org specifically)

Sometime in September/October of 2006, the growth rate of Wikipedia dropped dramatically. It crossed over from overperform to underperform in that time. And it’s been mired in that slump ever since.

People have recognized the community has been facing issues of quality and growth, but it has never been as stark as it is here. Wikipedia seems to be hitting that top part of the S-curve, and it’s something the community has been worried about for a while.

What could explain this? The beginnings of a virtual colony collapse disorder, or the natural course of a mature community?

Is it governance issues? A new board was put in place almost the exact same time while multiple staff reshuffles have taken place. Certainly a new style of oversight and leadership has taken hold. The board is larger than its ever been, and is very much an operational, hands-on entity. Gone are the days of grassroots informality. Elected folks are now delegated with authority and a six figure budget. Formal “chapters” with leaders dominate the community organizing efforts. There is still lingering resentment over the selection of an Asian city over a European city for the Wikimania 2007 conference. The stakes are higher. Have the tensions too?

Is a “tragedy of the commons” affecting Wikipedia? As a community grows, and becomes more anonymous and unfamiliar with each other, the same original grassroots underpinnings start to fade. It’s the difference between a town and a city. The difference between Ann Arbor and Detroit. In big town concrete jungle Wikipedia, unfamiliarity with others fosters incivility. This was something that was more often kept under control in small town picket fence-lined Wikipedia.

Is it the natural consequence of a nearly complete project? The “low hanging fruit are all gone” according to one Wikipedian. The thrill of starting the article on [[Monkey]] or [[Theodore Roosevelt]], and the associated feeling of empowerment, no longer exists. More and more, newbies are met with “don’t touch that,” or “we don’t do that here.” As more veterans leave, their ranks are not being filled with those inspired by the early exuberance and “aha” factor that Wikipedians felt even one year ago. That has a significant effect on whether quality editors can be replaced. New article writing, map creation and forming new features all thrilled the first generation of Wikipedians. Today, the mundane and boring tasks remain — copyediting, fact checking and vandalism fighting.

Increasingly, Wikipedia admins today find themselves fending off the tacking on of often pointless “Trivia” sections to every article. (If they’re lucky, they can shunt these factoids to pages such as [[Eiffel_Tower_in_pop_culture]], but you are still left with cringeworthy examples like [[Hitler_in_popular_culture]])

Perhaps the only virgin areas for Wikipedia are ones related to “newsmakers” or sudden celebrity. News is constantly streaming out new facts, stories and personalities, and Wikipedia’s strength has been to capture it all. Another area of potential growth involves “second level” articles that go up the information pyramid — comparative analyses, “Impact of…” articles, or large sweeping [[The Eighties]] roundups. The problem is they start to drift closer to a current no-no within the community — original research. Those attitudes may have to change.

A community built on passion and interest can do great things. For six years, it has done great things in Wikipedia. But what happens when the fuel is exhausted? The low hanging fruit has been plucked. The soil not as rich. Has the golden age of Wikipedia passed? And how will it be recorded in [[Wikipedia]]?

It’s rare to see China reporting that provides insight to both newbies and old China hands. But Washington Post’s Ed Cody does an excellent job today describing how information communication technologies enabled the local masses to oppose the construction of a chemical plant in Xiamen, China. (story link)

By promoting the construction of a giant chemical factory among the suburban palm trees, the local government was “setting off an atomic bomb in all of Xiamen,” the massive message sprays charged, predicting that the plant would cause “leukemia and deformed babies” among the 2 million-plus residents of this city on China’s southern rim, just opposite Taiwan.

The environmental activists behind the messages might have exaggerated the danger with their florid language, experts said. But their passionate opposition to the chemical plant generated an explosion of public anger that forced a halt in construction, pending further environmental impact studies by authorities in Beijing, and produced large demonstrations June 1 and 2, drawing national publicity.

Ed had all the elements of a top notch China story — lucidly describing the Internet and telecom technology; identifying key bloggers and activists; relating Xiamen’s local green pride; capturing the national-provincial government dynamics; dissecting local media practices; and not going overboard with tired old China cliches. (To be fair, Wall Street Journal’s Shai Oster had it back in May).

Xiamen really is a unique place — it has been known as China’s Green City for years, with the city’s university sporting palm trees and rolling green lawns. Gulangyu Island, a short ferry ride from the city center, is like the Newport or Martha’s Vineyard of China, with the former mansions of colonial-era European businessmen while now playing home to a budding musical arts scene. Citizens rose up not for Western notions of democracy, liberty or personal freedoms, but simply to protect their basic right to a healthy life.

Even with the state-approved media outlets muzzled, people found ways to mobilize, get their message heard, and take to the streets to demand a modicum of social justice. Beijing’s leaders realized this, and had no choice but to relent in what was clearly an inept handling of issues by the provincial leaders.

Read the article in full, and then indulge me on my soap box.

It’s stories like these that make me want to print out a thousand copies for citizen journalism naysayers such as Nicholas Lemann and Andrew Keen. These pundits continue to feed a tired, first world, elitist snubbing of anything dealing with empowering individuals positioned at the point of contact with issues of the day. What they don’t realize is that outside their cozy privileged corners of the world, tech-enabled citizens are on the front lines countering state-run propaganda, corruption and social injustice.

The logical flaw is in their confused belief that “paid professionals” are the only ones with “professional standards.”

Wide swaths of Wikipedia are overseen and edited by unpaid professionals, but hold bachelors, masters and Ph.D.s in the fields they are editing. Slashdot commenters, often tops in their respective fields, quickly dissect so-called professional science journalism done my mainstream media and converge on the truth value of these news stories, often to the embarrassment of the authors. In areas devastated by war and strife, bloggers in Iraq and Afghanistan are the only ones providing any on-the-ground reality check while newspapers and TV news try to get individual foreign correspondents (if they’re lucky) some type of access to these stories.

As for the paid professionals? Fox News is a “professional news organization” filled with paid “professionals” severely lacking professional standards. And in between the Paris Hilton watch, the Anna Nicole Smith vigil, the Missing White Girl of the Week, waiting To Catch a Predator and the hourly shoutfests, sometimes television news will attempt something approaching serious journalism. But that’s only after 11pm or on Sunday.

The United States has the most free press environment in the world, yet it is puzzling why so many who purport to embody its values so enthusiastically throttle the practice of it. It seems folks like Lemann feel the job of journalism is too important to leave to ordinary people.

Myself? It’s too important NOT to have ordinary people do it.

Who needs the Newseum when you can have this in your living room?

Scott Walker, assistant editor at the Birmingham News, has found a truly unique use for his Mac mini. Using an old newspaper vending rack found on eBay, a 17-inch LG LCD display, some rope lighting, a Mac mini and some AppleScript, Scott was able to create a digital newsstand that delivers a constant stream of current headlines to his living room, and look extremely cool while doing it. (blog link)

Who says new media and old media don’t mix?

(It’s also one of the cooler “mods” of a Macintosh)

Wikimedia, parent nonprofit of Wikipedia, announced today the appointment of Sue Gardner to the post of “consultant and special advisor.” She was formerly with CBC.ca. There will also be another significant announcement soon regarding other staff at the Foundation.
Full announcement below from the chair of the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees:

Dear Wikimedians,

Please join me in welcoming Sue Gardner to the Wikimedia Foundation. Sue joins us today as a consultant and special advisor to the Wikimedia Board of Trustees.

Sue’s arrival is an important step for Wikimedia as we continue to evolve as an organization. We want to ensure sustainability and reliability, as well as set the stage for future growth: Sue’s role is to help us do that. She is well-suited to the job: she’s consensus-oriented (which as we know is important in an organization like ours), and she has experience leading change and managing transitions like the one we’re facing. She is sympathetic to our goals and values, and also has some experience with collaborative projects.

Sue will be responsible for assessing and improving all aspects of the Foundation’s operations. This means she’ll be taking a look at how we do things today –everything from staffing to fundraising to financial controls– and recommending improvements.

Sue comes to us from CBC.CA, the website of Canada’s national public broadcaster, and that country’s largest and most popular news site. Under her leadership as Senior Director there, CBC.CA more than doubled its audience size, and won dozens of international awards. Prior to running CBC.CA, she was a journalist for 10 years, writing for magazines and newspapers, and making documentaries and talk programming for media companies such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the British Broadcasting Corporation and National Public Radio.

Please join me in welcoming her.

Who thinks Wikipedia is awesome? Miss Macomb (Jillian Kate Weingart) competing for the title of Miss Illinois does:

Weingart said she’d been brushing up on current events to prepare herself for the question-and-answer session of the pageant.

“I’ve got a huge binder, it’s all stuff I looked up on Wikipedia,” Weingart said. “I’m like, OK, I know what the G8 summit is, but I would never be able to answer an opinion question about it.”

When pressed on the topic, she responded: “Well, honestly, just from what I learned on Wikipedia last night, I don’t think it’s a bad idea to have the world’s leaders talking about environmental and the problems they’re all having.”

Wikipedia’s changing the world, one beauty queen at a time.

Reports are filtering through of English Wikipedia being accessible in the PRC again.

While I’d normally post a pretty thorough test of several ISPs in Beijing, I’m currently in the US and can’t do it in person. But several Wikipedians and PRC users have used Twitter to report this fact.

(Apologies for a month without posting, but recent family emergencies have made it hard to get online. Hope to get back to posting more.)