Comments on: Wikipedia in the WSJ http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2009/11/24/wikipedia-in-the-wsj/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=wikipedia-in-the-wsj USC professor and author of The Wikipedia Revolution Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:18:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Andrew Lih » Blog Archive » Wikimedia response http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2009/11/24/wikipedia-in-the-wsj/comment-page-1/#comment-311891 Andrew Lih » Blog Archive » Wikimedia response Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:40:00 +0000 http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/?p=453#comment-311891 [...] Wikimedia Foundation has responded to the recent press attention started by the WSJ piece about Wikipedia participation on the [...] [...] Wikimedia Foundation has responded to the recent press attention started by the WSJ piece about Wikipedia participation on the [...]

]]> By: Sage Ross http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2009/11/24/wikipedia-in-the-wsj/comment-page-1/#comment-311888 Sage Ross Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:36:12 +0000 http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/?p=453#comment-311888 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. 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.

]]>