Comments on: Wikipedia Plateau?

By: Miklos » “Wikipedia is heading for a bust?” So what else is new?

Miklos » “Wikipedia is heading for a bust?” So what else is new? — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:21:59 +0000

[...] articles would plateau”. Later that yet (in June), Andrew Lih asked almost the same question, Wikipedia Plateau?, noting then what Chi suggests now, that “Sometime in September/October of 2006, the growth rate [...]

By: justin

justin — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 02:22:47 +0000

more and more i see wikipedia entries from people who watched a television show/documentary on a subject and goes to surfs wiki and edit in information that they just see no matter how tangential and irrelavent it is, compounded with the fact that repeat edits and bickering over what should written in has led many articles to be unorganized and schizophrenic (espcially sensitive topics)wikipedia has really reached a sad state.

By: Tylenol.

Tylenol. — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 23:07:52 +0000

Asprin and tylenol interaction….

Tylenol in pregnancy. Tylenol overdose….

By: courses golf lesbian

courses golf lesbian — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:33:35 +0000

on courses lesbian courses lesbian on

By: Moti Karmona

Moti Karmona — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:49:27 +0000

Sad but true…
http://blog.karmona.com/index.php/2007/11/14/the-wikipedia-bureaucracy/

By: The Wikipedia Bureaucracy

The Wikipedia Bureaucracy — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:46:57 +0000

[...] but Wikipedia is also the biggest online bureaucracy with very impressive set of regulations, policies and guidelines which will make Max Weber turn in his grave twice; This bureaucracy is governed by unfriendly-easy-trigger-not-too-smart-enforcement intendant bots and WikiLawyerians which make the average Pragmatic Wikipedia editor turn around and leave Wikipedia to the bots (dogs) [...]

By: Miklos » Le parcours dâ€™une star : dâ€™Ã©toile Ã supernova ?

Miklos » Le parcours dâ€™une star : dâ€™Ã©toile Ã supernova ? — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:37:55 +0000

[...] Slashdot2, qui signale ce message, se demande si câ€™est un signe que contenus et couverture sont arrivÃ©s Ã maturitÃ© voire Ã saturation (hypothÃ¨se soulevÃ©e par Geoffrey Burling ou par Andrew Lih il y a dÃ©jÃ quelques mois), en dâ€™autres termes la finalitÃ© est-elle atteinte : existe-t-il un Â« point de convergence Â» du savoir ou de la connaissance commun Ã tous, fruit dâ€™un consensus universel, objectif et dÃ©tachÃ© de tout intÃ©rÃªt particulier ? Ou alors, serait-ce le modÃ¨le du fonctionnement de la Wikipedia, utopie dâ€™une dÃ©mocratie du savoir populaire Ã lâ€™Ã©chelle mondiale, qui atteint ses limites du fait mÃªme de sa croissance, alors que le systÃ¨me est en train dâ€™imploser sous le poids du vandalisme externe et des conflits internes ? [...]

By: Andrew Lih » Blog Archive » Unwanted: New articles in Wikipedia

Andrew Lih » Blog Archive » Unwanted: New articles in Wikipedia — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 22:16:06 +0000

[...] In my previous post, Wikipedia Plateau, I wondered — what was happening in English Wikipedia that would cause a massive drop in new article creation? [...]

By: Martin Walker

Martin Walker — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 19:16:48 +0000

Nice post, and a lot of interesting responses too. There are clearly many variables at work here, so the reasons are complex. I’m always an optimist, so I tend to support the idea that much of this is a natural maturing of Wikipedia. A lot IMHO has to do with a switch from quantity to quality; there are always those who can point to a familiar article and deplore its decline, but there are many more great articles popping up all the time. Also, our standards have risen over the years – look at a new featured article today compared to 2004.

One “variable” that has gone unmentioned has been the explosion (on en, at least) of the number of WikiProjects. To extend your Ann Arbor/Detroit analogy, I believe these provide “neighbourhoods” in which people can still feel a sense of community. They also provide (hopefully!) a welcoming place for newbies, and a place to organise quality improvement work.

Although a newbie may not get to create the NAFTA article, there is still a great sense of pride in turning that into a Featured article. Wikipedia may be maturing, but there still lots to do and it’s still an exciting place to work!

By: Doug

Doug — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 10:39:41 +0000

Andrew;

Your comments and others have brought to mind som ideas I’ve been kicking around regarding web 2.0 material.

1. What about The Wikilacrum, or the similar wiki sites that spring up that consolidate some of the more niche-oriented material that demands greater specialization and a more familiar knowledge of the material? I think Tgr is right about one thing, that specialized knowledge bases seek different tools and have different reasons for writing information.

2. Brandipedia.I am assuming that most people are like me. They may not be. But all I know of wikipedia is that it is a brand that challenges conventional thinking on resource material. If I was a resource creator by trade, I don’t think I would seek to access Wikipedia as a contributor. My resources and livelihood are tied up into other things, usually more “stable” and traditional. I know that’s assuming a lot, like, that other means other than Wikipedia are traditional.

3. In my opinion, it would be ridiculous to assume that Wikipedia could ever be finished and reach a plateau. That would go contrary to web 2.0 thinking. Although, whose to say that all web 2.0 sites act like other web 2.0 sites in terms of user behavior.

The final point I’d like to make is simply about what is natural intelligence and what is consumer-generated, or consumer-guided intelligence? Jimmy Wales had to sell the idea of Wikipedia before it became a useful alternative to encyclopedic discourse. Encyclopedic knowledge building has always been a revolutionary thing. Usually, manic and marginal individuals set out on journeys of mental discovery by catalouging everything they can in order to, well, find some kind of notoriety or success.

Is Wikipedia really a natural system? Or is it a successful project in non-profit consumerism?