Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-08-02/Special report

Discuss this story

An evident issue with simply counting the number of contributors is that it leaves aside the question of how efficiently they are able to work. I can think of quite a number of ways in which I work more efficiently than in 2003, when I started editing here (templates, a editing box which makes it quick to add references, text from Wikisource, better online resources from Internet Archive to Google Books to JSTOR ...). I don't think we should ever get complacent about the state of the editing community, but they can certainly be productive. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go through the article again, but I think it reveals a major fallacy in its methodology, that the reduced numbers of articles created/edited when compared to the initial years shows gradual decline. You can't do that because at the outset nothing was written, and today it's much harder identifying topics to write about. A better methodology would be to compare the rates and numbers of editors that edit on news stories that are significant at the moment, e.g. recent notable newsworthy deaths of African American men and world events like Arab Spring or volcanos erupting. Perhaps if you would focus less on numbers and more on quality of editing - for example rate the quality of articles on post-2000 American presidents or politicians as they stood on their last day in office, or look at the quality of articles on new films (over the past 20 years) 2 months after their opening date. To me that would be a closer determinant of where and how Wikipedia is progressing. - kosboot (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is like a giant barn raising. Neighbors (in this case the world community) saw Larry and Jimbo moving in, came on by with hammer and nails, and stayed around for a couple of decades to make sure the wind wouldn't blow it down. The end of open collaboration? Ha! A great beginning! Randy Kryn (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are some major issues here:
- Firstly the decline in active editors appears to have stopped a considerable time ago.
- Secondly the curve on vandalism ends in 2010.
- Thirdly we have "new" techniques for dealing with vandalism, which reduce the amount of effort required per incident. Notably edit filters, anti-vandal bots, STiki and Huggle
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

The vandalism did not end; the graph did. It seems that our new technology has been effective in combating it, but not eliminating it. Moreover, the more insidious forms of attack require human, often expert, intervention. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another factor - as Wikipedia is a project that got lots of attention and press, lots of people popped over to try it out and see what it is. Most of these didn't stay long because the project didn't really match up with there inherent interests, so they lost interest and left. The remainder found that they enjoyed editing and stayed. This factor is pretty common is new things that get lots of media attention. Pokemon Go had the same pattern, lots signing up in curiosity, while a smaller number remain to this day. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I would compare writing a useful Wikipedia article -- not a GA or FA class article -- involves as much work as writing an undergraduate term paper. People who think writing term papers as fun are definitely a small, uncommon group. (Maybe the W?F should spend resources into keeping established editors, maybe as much as they spend on recruiting new talent.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Any undergraduate should be capable of writing a GA class article, and we have actually demonstrated this is true on the HOPAU project. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was referring to the amount of work -- required to research, organize, rewrite -- needed to accomplish this, not to the skill level needed. It's been many years since anyone could say, "Hey I have an hour to kill; I'm going to make some article on Wikipedia much better." (For the record, undergraduates are quite capable of writing term papers. Otherwise they would not be admitted to college in the first place.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The authors conclude that the "rise and decline pattern" of contributor participation "reflects a durable feature of peer production organizations rather than a pathology of Wikipedia." This statement is partly true, partly false, and dangerously misleading. Some Wikipedia editors, including some admins, express a pathological animus toward inexperienced editors. By doing so, they prevent Wikipedia from retaining new editors to carry on, and improve, Wikipedia. Regardless of what happens at other peer production organizations, Wikipedia cannot afford to continue squandering its most precious resource.

Wikipedia has become an important, perhaps indispensable, information source for knowledge seekers worldwide. I have been editing English Wikipedia since 2006. English Wikipedia's style of collaboration has been consistently hostile to new editors. I adapt quickly and I obey policies and guidelines (here and elsewhere), so I never had problems here. But I see hostility to inexperienced editors frequently.

My main computer is always logged in to Wikipedia. My edits are rarely reverted. However, when I edit from a library's computer or my phone and I don't bother to log in, more than half of my etits are reverted with no explanation. Many people have low self esteem and put others down in an attempt to feel better about themselves. Such individuals stand out in organizations, and English Wikipedia has them in abundance. In college fraternities, these individuals may make up 20% of the "fraters" (brothers), but they do 90% of the hazing. Patrolling edits is important work here. But guess which personality types are attracted to edit patrol. It's soooo easy to click that undo link.

I repeat: Wikipedia cannot afford to continue squandering its most precious resource.—Finell 21:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... when I edit from a library's computer or my phone and I don't bother to log in, more than half of my e[d]its are reverted with no explanation. Shocking, but maybe not surprising. And it's even easier to revert a contribution when it's made by a new editor who can't possibly follow all our detailed policies and guidelines, as they don't care about them and just wanted to make a straightforward improvement. I think many experienced editors' default is to revert rather than leave it be, which is completely backwards. Additionally, there should be much more focus on improving an edit rather than reverting: it does take a lot of conscious effort because the latter is just so easy, whereas the former requires genuine engagement and some knowledge of the subject matter. I'm probably guilty of holding new editors to a double standard myself sometimes. — Bilorv (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We obviously work on different WikiProjects, but my impression is that at least 75% of anonymous edits are pretty much worthless. I bet you could poll the members of the groups in which I participate and they would agree (because they're also the ones that revert them). I know I'm far from alone in wishing that registration would be mandatory. Anyone could still edit - but that would make them take greater responsibility. - kosboot (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd need to think a bit more carefully before putting a number on it, but 75% sounds reasonable to me. My point is more that I see more edits reverted than just the worthless ones. I don't think the issue here is anonymous users not taking "great responsibility". I think the issue is that our learning curve is more like a cliff they have to climb with no tools to work with. Lots of worthless edits I see are fully made in good faith and completely reasonable to make if you're not intricately familiar with the subject-specific Wikipedia conventions. — Bilorv (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article, but I am not sure about several things here. First, we do not necessarily require an ever-increasing editor base. Wikipedia needs to sustain itself, not create increasing revenue for shareholders. The threat of vandalism seems over-exaggerated (and the studies are ancient). In my own experience while reading (i.e. not searching for vandalism), visible vandalism has become quite rare, and well under control using various means of protection, anti-vandalism bots, and long term blocks. Silly vandalism is also comparatively easy to notice for readers and therefore harmless. The massive amounts of well-written advertising, on the other hand, are much harder to deal with, and an increased influx here could overwhelm the editors we still have (and things like ACPERM that make it impossible for good faith newbies to start an article with the instant gratification of the wiki model, i.e. without having to ask anyone else for permission, don't inconvenience professional advertisers much at all). I think we need to have a better approach to welcoming newbies (by that I don't mean pasting templates on their talk page, but actually looking at what they are trying to do and helping them learn how to achieve that) while showing the professional spammers the door. —Kusma (t·c) 22:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Kusma, I consent to most all you wrote above. Good and structured diagnosis! And especially the procceeding with hopeful new editors: not "pasting templates on their talk page, but actually looking at what they are trying to do" is straight the right way. But let us stay honest: very few wikipedians are doing it like that. Maybe much too few. How to grow their numbers and group dynamics? That might be a key. And basically there is another basal factor (newbies are only a partial quantity): how to augment positive personal feedback to valuable contributors (not only the "stars"). More esteem for appreciated individuals could probably 'change the game' and consolidate the numbers of experienced contributors. Maybe while some more sophisticated methods to scare off narcisstic personalities are also necessary. -- Just N. (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if Wikipedia "do[es] not necessarily require an ever-increasing editor base", we still must attract and retain lots of new editors, constantly, just offset attrition. Active editors die and become disabled. Other active editors either reduce the time they devote to editing Wikipedia or quit editing altogether because of other responsibilities or interests and for myriad other reasons. Furthermore, for Wikipedia to remain useful, existing articles require frequent revision and new articles must be written as the world's collective knowledge increases at an astonishing rate. As a result, Wikipedia's text base constantly increases. As a result, we do require "an ever-increasing editor base" to maintain the ever-increasing text.—Finell 01:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The top left panel shows English Wikipedia’s explosive contributor growth through March 2007 and its transition into a long, slow period of decline." Are we all looking at the same thing? I am seeing that for more than five years the number of active editors has been flat. I interpret this as Wikipedia reaching a "mature" stage of sustainability. The authors seem to have a preconceived view which they wish the figures to support. But they don't. Which rather undermines both the whole thesis and the authors' credibility. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed the graphs basically says that the German Wikipedia is the only one in a long-term decline, while the others have stabilized. Have they stabilized at a sustainable level given the increasing amount of content? Hard to tell. —Kusma (t·c) 22:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I stopped reading after two paragraphs. The authors clearly have their own opinion and don't mind claiming the data supports it even when it clearly does not. When the graph shows the trend has stabilized for years and the author's describe it as an lengthy decline, they lost any credibility at the outset. The Signpost should be ashamed to run this at length, making it look like a "fake news" site. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe its time to reconsider anonymous editing. Its time seems to have passed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I personally wouldn't miss IP-contribs. But OTOH we'd have to consider how to replace it by another low obstacle mechanism. How not to be easily confused with lassoing methods like instagram/facebook which always try to force membership on you? -- Just N. (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- That's an interesting idea. Asking them to use their facebook account to login. Sock puppetry would then result in not just the loss of Wikipedia access, but their facebook account as well. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a strange experience for me to look at graphs that show that editor numbers have been stable for well over six years and then read all this talk about the "decline" in editors. And then a graph about vandalism and unconstructive editing that's ten years out of date, with no data since 2010. The fact of the matter is that editing Wikipedia was a fad, pure and simple, in 2007 when the number of editors peaked. There were millions of obvious opportunities to write articles easily back then, which I call the "low hanging fruit". Lots of people wrote an article or two, bragged to their friends, and moved on to the next fad. Given the nature of writing a successful encyclopedia open to the participation of anyone, that is entirely to be expected, as was the predictable decline when a large majority of articles about obviously notable topics were already written, and the faddishness factor faded. I see no signs of crisis. Backlogs at administrative noticeboards are manageable, bots do much of the easy work fighting vandalism, and human patrollers deal quite effectively with most of the rest. Our coverage of truly encyclopedic current events like the COVID-19 pandemic is excellent, and there are plenty of opportunities to write new articles for serious new volunteers willing to familiarize themselves with our policies and guidelines, even superficially. Yes, Wikipedia is an unfriendly place for promotional editors, POV pushers, incompetents, and the wide range of kooks and cranks. And, yes, some editors are jaded and unfriendly to newbies, and yes, we have systemic biases that many experienced editors work every day to overcome. But an analysis based on flawed data and flawed assumptions ends up as flawed research of limited value. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just some random thoughts. People worry about driving away new editors. I also worry about driving away established editors. I find the editor experience to have changed in the 15 years since I started. I felt I had collaborative relationships with many other editors then, I don't feel that now. Many of the editors I remember working with are gone. That has taken some of the fun out of editing. I've been more or less inactive the last few months after I was accused of biting newcomers because I was reverting edits and leaving standard template messages on the reverted editor's talk page. I'm sorry, but I cannot bring myself to leave edits that I feel reduce the quality of Wikipedia just to avoid offending someone. I often did leave personalized messages when I reverted someone, but how much effort I was willing to put into that varied over time and circumstances.

I would also note that we do still have a vandalism problem. I constantly was seeing subtle unsourced changes to numbers, such as populations and temperatures on climate charts. I would have to take the time to search for reliables sources for the numbers (many were unsourced, or the sources were dead or out-of-date) to fix them. A couple of years ago I found a hoax page that was two years old. I wonder how many more such hoax pages are out there.

I like creating content. I no longer enjoy patrolling my watchlist. I probably will continue adding well-sourced content to Wikipedia, but I probably will not continue patrolling my watchlist since my style offends some people. - Donald Albury 21:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I enjoyed reading your observations and conclusions, Donald Albury. I like that 'values' based approach of yours, even if it seems to be called 'old-fashioned' nowadays. I'm not sure if it's Wikipedia 'psycho' development or just the reflection of the controversial society all around where we are living in real life. -- Just N. (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, your confidence of extrapolation is much wider than the range of your predictions. EllenCT (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this discussion had concerned quantity of edits and edtors, not their quality. Looking back to the beginning, or even the stage reached when I came here in 2007, the average level and academic sophistication of our articles and our referencing has increased enormously. (I refer primarily to the WP I know best, enWP). The general attitude in 2007 was that anything that looked like a RS would do, and that it was enough to quote the headline; when it came to academic sources, all peer reviewed articles were equal, as were all published books. Except in the most extreme cases, we never looked at the actual source itself, and the possible bias of the content. We made generalizations based on the sketchiest evidence , as long as they fit our prejudice, and we rarely had detailed discussions except where different prejudices came into conflict. The clearest example is the content of medical science articles then and now, but other fields such as history and politics had similar problems. We accepted without hesitation articles on organizations and their leaders based on the most outrageous of promotional content. The net result is that we are left with half a million articles that need radical improvement or deletion. We no longer accept such content, and I give tribute to the heroes at AfC such as Kudpung, but also to the general impatience at such material now present at AfD.

Similarly, we 13 years ago had many established editors who could write superficial but plausible content over an absurdly wide range of topics. We may have slightly fewer active editors now, but the ones that stay are ones who can write and source properly--we have little hesitation in remove coi and other problematic editors.

I hope we remain forever a platform for amateurs, but I hope to see continuing progress in attracting a higher grade of these amateurs, and I hope that one continuing way to bring them here will be not just the formal educational programs, but the outreach programs of the local wikigroups. It is through specialized subject groups and local groups that we will make progress. DGG ( talk ) 08:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your last sentence has caught me, DGG. Just by curiosity a question: which specialized subject groups and local groups are you personally part of? Do you seriously estimate that nearly anybody in Wikipedia would join that groups if they were available? How much time and free capacities do have 21th century people on average? Please don't misunderstand this questioning as attacking, it's just considering possibilities in the world of today. Regards, Just N. (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the board of WM-NYC, and was active in the ed program in its first years; I'm quite active on some of the admin boards & wikiprojects and subject workgroups here, though which ones they are varies with time, & have been a member of arbcom for 5 of the last 6 years & before that active in OTRS, and will be again. But I'm not a fair example: I'm a retired librarian. However, most of the other people I've worked with on these groups whom I know are not at all retired--most hold full time jobs or student commitments. At enWP I'm only the 118th most active editor, and only the 50th most active admin. Most of those above me on the list whom I know also have full time jobs or commitments. I personally would not ever have been able to do as much on & off WP as some of them do. Many of the people in WM-NYC are only somewhat active there and slightly active in WP, but still find both valuable enough to have joined. DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd concur with many of the above comments. The number of active editors is now clearly stable, and has been for some years. Vandalism attempts may have increased, but so has the bot capability to detect them. The rush to create any kind of article on anything, with or without citations (mainly without), has happily abated, leaving an immense quantity of work which has steadily improved in quality, to the point where many WikiProjects rightly do not tolerate any additions not supported by reliable sources. The proportion of articles classed as Good Articles has quietly and steadily increased. Has the time come to end IP editing? - there's no need for any kind of pressure or advertising, just a simple 'to edit, please log in or create an account'. 'Everyone' will still be able to edit, with that simple step. Wikipedia lives. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"In fact, not even Wikipedia has been able to maintain a stable community of volunteers over the past two decades" - well, not having existing for two decades would seem to make this a tautology, "long, slow period of decline" - looks pretty steady since 2013. I see no cause for concern here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the few Signposts' articles I've ever read and the first to ever comment too. I really enjoyed the analysis. I have been managing and studying virtual fandom communities over the course of 3-5 years and even there, there is the same phenomenon with activity. Even if no community work actually is needed. You get a growth period because of having porous boundaries, with the growth comes ill-faith activity usually in forms of trolling and cyberbullying, you get forced to start activating defenses against these kinds of behaviors by using rules to regulate interaction or certain standards users must adhere to before being allowed to join, you start banning people, all this starts the stale period and eventually, because of a lack of new activity, it starts the decline period. Many virtual communities work like pyramid schemes in that sense. In order to have new activity, whatever that is, you need users to get interested in the project and in order to get people interested in the project, you need to give them new activity. You must also factor in the fact that most new activity comes from not-so-new-but-still-new users because of the constant need of new insiders as they traverse into boundary positions, a rather harsh socio-reality, and you get left with the fact that virtual volunteer communities continuously need new people in order to survive. The reason for that is since it is a volunteering job, you actually "pay" people with happiness and as time goes by, that happiness gets ever the more so hard to find (basic psychiatric reasons) so that sets in motion the whole cycles described in countless of analysis related to these kind of communities. On my opinion, I think it would be better if we could accept the whole process described above and treat it as a given truth, acknowledge it and try to find ways to make our communities' futures brighter co-existing with that aspect. Medicine works by treating death as a given truth and working from there trying to postpone it (maybe even indefinitely) or even defeat it - if that will ever be possible, - not by pretending it doesn't exist. - Klein Muçi (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Hill is always a good read. I see this essay in line with TeBlunthuis, Shaw & Mako Hill 2018. What I enjoy about their approach is that they skip the alarmism we sometimes see in the movement. And indeed, the surprising coincidence of the growth/decline-pattern in several large Wikipedia editions remains crying for an explanation. I have given some thought to chronological aspects of wikis and find it a desideratum to learn more about these patterns. From a historian's point of view, I would speak of typical periods in the evolution of a wiki, and am interested how to define them better. Ziko (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Signpost covered the 2015 rally in editing volume five years ago. Why waste electrons on stuff written by people who haven't noticed that it is now 2020 and editing is still above the 2014 minima? The reality is that we are a volunteer project that happens to be on the internet. There are lots of volunteer projects out there which have long outlived their founding generation, if only because few humans live to be a hundred and plenty of charities do. To understand how our community is changing and what its potential future is you need to look at volunteer organisations that have lasted a lot longer than we have. It would also help if you or the WMF ran some editor surveys to find out basic things like our changing age profile, and how much of our activity is moving to Wikidata. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting exercise would be to create charts of contributors to Draft namespace and combined contributions to Draft- and Main-spaces, and compare these with mainspace-only contributions. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Open collaboration is the most important part of being a Wiki. Otherwise its just a one-sided encyclopedia. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When discussing "a surreptitious product placement campaign in its illustrations" (or any other similar behavior), could the name of this company be made less conspicuous (e.g., mentioned only in footnotes)? By mentioning this company three times in the text body, the Signpost is making free advertisement for it. Apokrif (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]