Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
Wikipedia in decline? or just cleaning house? — Parallax Forums

Wikipedia in decline? or just cleaning house?

ElectricAyeElectricAye Posts: 4,561
edited 2013-11-24 15:43 in General Discussion
Is the world's largest source of free information* on the decline?

http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/


wiki.tablex519.jpg



*Next to me.

Comments

  • Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) Posts: 23,514
    edited 2013-11-22 17:29
    'Found this link in the article:

    If you're not familiar with the works of Jorge Luis Borges, this is a good place to start. More can be found here:

    His stories and essays are short, but very though-provoking -- each an enjoyable read.

    -Phil
  • User NameUser Name Posts: 1,451
    edited 2013-11-22 19:35
    Great article! It is an interesting study in civics, sociology, psychology, and probably several other disciplines too.

    In a humanistic culture where absolute standards are neither enforced nor strongly advocated, can organizations and operations be juggled to get the desired outcome, anyway? It's a question I ask myself every day. This article provides fascinating clues.
  • LoopyBytelooseLoopyByteloose Posts: 12,537
    edited 2013-11-23 01:59
    I love Wikipedia as it is a main source of reading for people living abroad.. like myself.

    But in many ways it is a difficult and thankless job to keep up with all the information. The Chinese section is split between Mainland China acceptable, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and other overseas Chinese.

    In the past, there have been some obvious turf battles for content.. especially about modern Chinese history. Some Wikipedia has come up with no less than four Chinese versions to be fair to everyone.

    Hard to say if it will decline or just plod along... but it is a gift to humanity for trying.
  • localrogerlocalroger Posts: 3,451
    edited 2013-11-23 06:10
    The Wikipedia culture has become very byzantine and exclusionist, so that new people are strongly discouraged from joining the project in a meaningful way. I've seen many stories of people who considered contributing but who were turned away by the turf wars and attitude they encountered.
  • potatoheadpotatohead Posts: 10,261
    edited 2013-11-23 12:57
    The amount of trouble I experiened over what should have been a benign edit turned me off quick. It's a fiefdom now, and IMHO, many who have some basic agenda, or something they want to watchdog have staked out territories which make things increasingly difficult.
  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 21,230
    edited 2013-11-23 13:13
    Over 4 million articles!

    I would call that an astounding success.

    I'd call it done. Make it all read only. You know, like good old paper encyclopedias.

    Start a new edition.
  • localrogerlocalroger Posts: 3,451
    edited 2013-11-23 14:17
    Heater. wrote: »
    I'd call it done. Make it all read only. You know, like good old paper encyclopedias.

    The comment I made on another board when this broke was... I guess I don't need to worry about updating the image on my WikiReader, a cute little box that has the text of the entire encyclopedia on a uSD card and will run for 100+ hours on a set of AAA batteries. I entertained myself for a whole airline flight recently just by hitting the RANDOM button.
  • prof_brainoprof_braino Posts: 4,313
    edited 2013-11-24 07:12
    Heater. wrote: »
    Over 4 million articles! I would call that an astounding success. I'd call it done. ... Start a new edition.

    If folks are asking if its "in decline" with 4 million articles, I figure somebody is doing something right and it just getting started.

    Of course there are those that still say it will never work, and any result would not be of any real use. :)

    All I would add is "Don't Panic".
  • jazzedjazzed Posts: 11,803
    edited 2013-11-24 08:23
    Worked great until the librarians got involved.
  • potatoheadpotatohead Posts: 10,261
    edited 2013-11-24 15:43
    Precisely. I have high respect for librarians. It isn't personal with me.

    There are levels of accuracy and relevancy that are not often put into proper context. Wikipedia is a great resource. I use it frequently. On some lower relevancy topics, niche things, I find the utility limited by those who watch or curate the contributions. That's all.

    I feel this will limit depth and I think doing that is a loss over all. Could be 10x the material if this balance were better managed.

    It is the niches that hold the next level of value IMHO.
Sign In or Register to comment.