Wikipedia in the WSJ

Today’s WSJ has an article by Julia Angwin and Geoff Fowler: Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages and the associated Digits blog post. It’s one of the best reported stories so far on the dropoff in numbers in Wikipedia (and it’s not just because they quoted me).

The article taps all the right folks: founder Jimmy Wales; WMF’s Sue Gardner and Frank Schulenberg; WMF board of trustees members Sam Klein and Kat Walsh; and many researchers of the project ranging from Mathias Schindler to Ed Chi. It’s hard to argue the plateau is something that can be dismissed lightly.

Perhaps the greatest fear is that Wikipedia will decline not with a bang, but a whimper. Why? Wikipedia has usually made its big strides from reacting to massive public relations “bangs.” Whether it was the Seigenthaler incident that restricted anonymous editing, or upped the requirement for verifiability and reliable sources, Jimmy Wales has been able to push through tough community changes in reaction to obvious public problems.

The alarming thing about a slow decline in Wikipedia’s quality is that there may be no flashpoint to rally around. A slow, low-level infiltration of spam and non-neutral edits may be occurring that the shrinking community may not be able to police.

At SXSW 2010, I’ll be doing a solo talk on this exact topic: “Can Wikipedia Survive Popular Success and Community Decline?” I welcome any and all theories related to this question, either in email or as comments to this post.

Here is an extended video interview I did with the Journal’s Angwin about this.

3 thoughts on “Wikipedia in the WSJ

  1. Why jump from a decline in community size to a decline in content quality? The core community never could come anywhere close to policing the constant stream of quasi-spam and non-neutral editing; anons are responsible for a lot of upkeep and policing too.

    And isn’t the data showing declines in editing at all levels roughly in proportion, so that there are fewer very active editors but fewer anon and newbie edits too? That was what I remember from Robert Rohde’s study in late 2008.

    In some ways, I actually think the community is stronger than it’s ever been, even as it gets smaller. (Part of this may be that the range of viewpoints about what Wikipedia is/can be has shrunk, and most of the extreme inclusionists and extreme deletionists have left the project. Part of it is probably that, 8 years in, more people have known each other for longer and the social scaffolding is more widespread.) If you’re going to argue “community decline” and not just “decline in community size”, I’m curious to see that argument fleshed out.

  2. Pingback: Andrew Lih » Blog Archive » Wikimedia response

  3. Below in Honolulu, Magoo’s Pizza makes a terrific pie. They’re a locally-owned compact business that make their pizzas in the converted bus on King Street following to McDonald’s. Great stuff.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>