User:Jorge Stolfi/DoW/SourceComplexity

Another factor that may be contributing to the dearth of new editors since 2006 s the increasing complexity of Wikipedia source pages. This problem has been clearly highlighted by the Wikipedia Usability Initiative report.

Creeping complexity

Proliferation of cryptic templates

In the early years of Wikipedia, when a user cliked the "edit" button for the first time, he would see exactly the same text as in the reader's view, in a self-evident markup. Even users who were not familiar with any markup language (HTML, TeX, etc.) could easily edit the article's text and wikilinks, without having to read any manuals. Even tables were formatted using the HTML table syntax, which a smart kid could easily figure out.

Today, the source of most articles begins with a screenful or two of template calls, such as {{otheruses}}, {{unreferenced}}, navboxes, infoboxes, etc. — usually with ofuscating names, keywords and syntax. The text proper is now interspersed with all sorts of typographical template calls (like {{ipa|}}, {{lang|de|}}, {{convert|}}, etc.) and reference entries (<ref>...</ref>, or, worse, <ref>{{cite ...}}</ref>.

Tables are now encoded in a cryptic notation which, as far as I can tell, is a cross between the TECO macro language and the machine language of a Russian-made Turing machine. Math is encoded in TeX's syntax; which was probably the best choice for mathematicians and other editors used to writing scientific or engineering papers, but which must look rather mysterious to editors who have only a high school kowledge of mathematics, or who work in other academic fields (such as business or medicine) where math is used too.

Increasing emphasis on form rather than content

Many of the templates that have been created over the years are meant to improve the appearance of articles (often in microscopic details), rather than to help editors write content. Articles also make increasing use of fancy typographic characters (such as en- and em-dashes, non-breaking spaces, central dots, ellipses, etc.) that only typographically educated editors will know how to enter, and where.

One of the smartest decisions in Wikipedia's history was that of using straight quotes (") instead of paired open-close quotes. That decision exemplifies the basic KISS-like design philosophy that prevailed in its early years: namely, that making contents easier to type is much, much more important than making the article look nice.

In contrast, one of the stupidest decisions I have came across in Wikipedia's hyper-obese style manuals is that of using en-dashes instead of plain dashes for composite names, e.g. in Newton–Raphson method. In 40 years of academic life, everybody I know has used plain dashes for that purpose; and I never came across a journal or book publisher which would dare impose that level of cretinity on its authors. (Indeed, the complete style manuals of most scholarly journals fit on the inside back cover of a 6" by 9" magazine — including the addresses of the editors, their copyright policy, and how to draw ξs and ζs by hand in case your word processor does not have a Greek font.) The Wikipedia style guides are far more obssesively detailed than style manual I have ever seen. "Cancerous growth" is a very weak term to describe what has been going on for the last eight years, unbridled and unchecked, in that corner of Wikipedia.

(To be fair, I must admit the possibility of there being even more stupid prescriptions buried in those guides. The en-dash page was just the point where I stopped, and decided that I would never again waste my time reading a Wikpedia policy guide.)

Impact on new editors

Today, a Wikipedia user who clicks "edit" for the first time will probably assume that editing requires learning the cryptic language of the editorial and infobox templates, and therefore will quit right there. If he dares to scroll down until the first (so to speak) paragraph, he may be scared away by the formatting templates. Even if he is smart enough to ignore the templates, he will find the text very difficult to read, as each paragraph will be broken by multiline ref entries. If that by itself does not drive him away, the fear of "breaking" what looks like a very complicated program may keep him from clicking "save".

Thus, thanks to creeping featuritis, the growing preoccupation with appearance over content, and the rash activity of robot-wielding article taggers, "Wikipedia editing" has now become a hobby that could only appeal to masochists, vandals, and editors who do not care about the consequences or quality of their edits.