Wikipedia says it is losing contributors

Have they considered that perhaps the number of contributors is decreasing because the encyclopedia is basically nearly complete?

I know that new things happen every day and need to be added, but how many is that, really?

Maybe they should just simply release a comfortable editor (or provide Open Office/Word templates) which automatically format the content upon uploading it so people don't have to fiddle with the cryptic syntax.

E.g.: I love LaTeX over conventional document editors for writing papers, but I can really see where casual users would be put off by the learning curve. Same for the wikipedia style.

All I can say is, if you want someone to do something for free, MAKE IT EASY. If I tried to create a Wikipedia article and had to mess around with anything more complicated than typing a Word document, I would just give up. I do agree that there are just less articles to update since the site is "Mature".

Another thing that might help is to stop deleting new pages and edits without a proper reason.

Wikipedia is the collective voice of its editors, and they tend to dislike outsiders and newcomers because they might write something that goes against their point of view*. It's not really open to just anybody - you have to make good with the editors and administrators before they'll allow your writings to stay, almost regardless of the content. If some of them doesn't like it, or it "ruins" their pet article, they'll delete it over some whimsical thing.

*(Although they're supposed to be NPOV)

It's not really open to just anybody - you have to make good with the editors and administrators before they'll allow your writings to stay, almost regardless of the content. If some of them doesn't like it, or it "ruins" their pet article, they'll delete it over some whimsical thing.

I've had some claim that "nobody controls Wikipedia articles" and "anyone can edit". Baloney. Except for fairly bland articles, they're controlled by cliques.

Eikka,

Out of curiosity, what were you trying to contribute to wikipedia?

The unemployment rate has gone up which means far fewer people are sitting at 'work' updating Wikipeida pages instead of doing their job. Maybe?

Wow, didn't expect the comments on here to be so constructive. I ditto the first three posts.

They should make it easy and accessible, and perhaps even make a site that shows the topics that have the least coverage so people could locate something not covered yet, more easily.

Another thing that might help is to stop deleting new pages and edits without a proper reason.

Wikipedia is the collective voice of its editors, and they tend to dislike outsiders and newcomers because they might write something that goes against their point of view*. It's not really open to just anybody - you have to make good with the editors and administrators before they'll allow your writings to stay, almost regardless of the content. If some of them doesn't like it, or it "ruins" their pet article, they'll delete it over some whimsical thing.

*(Although they're supposed to be NPOV)

Very True ...

They need to change up the layouts, as others stated. It has so many different functions/options that it takes a while for most people who don't read it for hours obsesively, like myself, to look things up and research topics.

I didn't know about " Simple English Wikipedia " until a few days ago, which is a perfect resource for the layman interested in science and physics.

http://simple.wik...ain_Page

Imo, if they really want traffic, they should consider integrating something like most popular forums have, as far as layout.

It's too valuable to let crumble. It may have cons, but I think the pros far outweigh them.

Also, don't forget Uncyclopedia.

http://uncycloped...Einstein

I didn't know about " Simple English Wikipedia " until a few days ago, which is a perfect resource for the layman interested in science and physics.

I might have heard about it and then forgot about it, so it's good to be reminded. Wikipedia itself isn't a good source for depth knowledge -- that's hard to create by committee -- but it's a good place to get the simple facts. I just put it on my Firefox searchlist.

One of the really good things about Wikipedia is that if there's any controversy about a subject at all, it's likely to be discussed. It's nice to know when getting into a subject if there's some booby trap there. I will whine and moan about Wikipedia, but for all its faults it's mostly for the good.

Many contributors may have been discouraged by the obvious editorial "bias" in the system. At one time, there were articles about myself and my website which were frankly quite unflattering and full of outright falsehoods. I edited them to correct the factual errors, including cites to support the corrections. The next day the original errors were back. I again edited them to correct the factual errors, including cites to support the correction. The next day the original errors were back and all future edits blocked with the official Wikipedia explanation that I, Michael Rivero, was not considered an authoritative source on Michael Rivero. When the readers of my website tried to edit the articles, Wikipedia just deleted them.

So, one reason there are fewer contributors to Wikipedia is that nobody supports new media when it acts just like the old media.

Here's Mr. Rivero's website: http://whatreallyhappened.com/

Upon a cursory glance, I can see why he is not a trusted Wikipedia contributor. Should Wikipedia not be trusted if they don't let Omatumr edit physics pages?

Also:

Eikka, WhiteJim,

Out of curiosity, what were you trying to contribute to wikipedia?

How about the so called experts on their sight that po po
someones technology, later to come out with a word addition
that now has their name associated with the technology.

FrankHerbert, I've got to agree with Eikka (shocking surprise, I know), but before you ask - I was not personally involved, i.e. I was following the "edit wars" of a couple of other posters I am familiar with, on subjects regarding which I was neither an expert nor totally unfamiliar.

The only mention I can find of Mike Rivero on Wikipedia is that he got banned from the Free Republic forum. "Oh, where was I when I heard the news?"

No one tries to post in Wikipedia anymore because there are so many idiots who will just as happily delete your submission. I've tried on several occasions, putting a lot of time into research and quality of writing, only to have my post summarily ripped and deleted without explanation- and no way to even argue my point. I gave up and I'm sure most will if they even try. Whatever...

Wikipedia is being killed by editorial bullies.

Consider Steven Slater, the JetBlue flight attendant, who dramatically quiet his job last August by taking two beers and left by the emergency slide. A dozen songs were written about him. He was the top news story in August 2010. Time magazine rated him first and second in two its people lists at the end of 2010. But Wikipedia deletes articles on him due to lack of suitable notability--against its own rules.

Do your own homework--check Steven Slater out on wikipedia now--you get sent to "JetBlue flight attendant incident" -- he is not even given a separate subsection. Articles exist for sports people if they win only on two occasions a minor sports competition. But Steven Slater is for "wikilegal" reasons is not a suitable subject for wikipedia.

If Jimmy Wales or anyone wants to understand why Wikipedia is losing editors go now and create a new article on Steven Slater and see the darkside of Wikipedia.

I have edited existing articles for sense or clarity, corrected typos, updated entries and even tried to do one from scratch. It is however difficult to master. I have even sent money.

It is not perfect but it is the best thing we have currently. And it is hugely useful. I have a library of a couple of hundred reference books but they all suffer from becoming out of date through time and further research. Wikipedia, taken with an eye to rogue entries, is really quite brilliant.

I notice someone says you cannot discuss edits etc. You can.

I notice that they still have a long ways to go on chemical articles. Overall, I really like wikipedia. They have a very clean format: I wish the EOL would follow, but, hey, we already have wikispecies and they aren't any better.

If wikipedia had a public comments section under their articles, like Physorg, it may increase readers and writers interest in the site.

Here's Mr. Rivero's website: http://whatreallyhappened.com/

Upon a cursory glance, I can see why he is not a trusted Wikipedia contributor.

I don't. Please explain why there should be no information at all about his ugly website and how this suppression of information would be different from typical mainstream media behaviour.

Current Wikipedia policy seems to allow powerful SIGs (like corporations and churches) to take over in certain languages.
It is remarkable, for instance, that any critical reasoning obviously has been removed from German Wikipedia articles about the Roman Catholic Church. The English articles "Criticism of the Catholic Church" and "Criticism of Christianity" don't exist in a German version and I've seen several German articles concerning the role of Christianity in Europe's history where the crimes of the Catholic party are outrageously played down or withheld. See the English and the German version of the "Fourth Crusade". The German editors even have the chutzpah to mark the one-eyed article "recommended reading".

Otoh, the scientific Wikipedia articles are just great (well, most of them) as they replace lots of textbooks.

What do you expect? Anything that isn't scientific (and some of that, too) is editorial.
There is no 'standard' of what is the correct way to describe highly subjective issues.
Certainly not what is in the history books of nation X or nation Y (as with my experience of school systems in various countries - from the then Soviet Union to the US - they are all heavily biased and selectively distort/omit or embellish the facts. And not country more so than any other but pretty much equally)

As to hether certain pages can be 'taken over' by powerfull entities: What's the alternative? With great power come fanatic opponents. If you let everyone edit equally then you'd have e.g. an endless defacement of all religious (or atheist) sites.

What do you expect? Anything that isn't scientific (and some of that, too) is editorial.

Impartial editors.

There is no 'standard' of what is the correct way to describe highly subjective issues.

No need to implement a standard. Just a paragraph "Critical considerations" or a link to differing views. Suppression of facts is old-media-style.

As to hether certain pages can be 'taken over' by powerfull entities: What's the alternative?

Glasnost. Editors must have to disclose their connections to powerful entities like the Bertelsmann Stiftung.

With great power come fanatic opponents.

That's no reason to suppress the views of the non-fanatical opposition.

If you let everyone edit equally then you'd have e.g. an endless defacement of all religious (or atheist) sites.

No problem - every point of view could be published separately.

Suppression of the view of the defeated ones is unethical and should not be part of Wikipedia's policy.

I didn't know wikipedia had any standards, so I went over there to have a look - and it seems they don't have ironclad rules.

They do have guidelines among which are:
1. Neutral point of view
2. No original research
3. Verifiability
4. Biographies of living persons
5. Libel

Now remember, I'm all for 'criticism' sections, so this is not a defense of the removal of such sections:

However if such criticism does not conform to points 2 and 3 and poses a problem with regard to 5 (Libel laws being somewehat different in some countries) then I can see different language versions will be different.

Note that language versions on wikipedia DO NOT mean that some original page was translated (as there is no 'original' on wikipedia).

I peruse the german and US pages on there and the content is markedly different in all areas (scientific or not) with various degrees of quality. Sometimes the german text is more detailed and sometimes the US text is more detailed.

Out of curiosity, what were you trying to contribute to wikipedia?

I can't remember the specific details since I so rarely edit anything.

But the main gist is that you have an article with an obvious bias. Let's imagine; "In the near future, electric cars' batteries can be recharged in five minutes according to such and such", which is fine in itself but it deliberately omits something important.

So I add something like "However, quick recharging itself may be problematic because of the high stress it puts on the local electricity grid."

So they slap it with (citation needed) and eventually delete the comment.

So I add an explaination "For example, recharging a 24 kWh battery in 5 minutes equals 288 kW of power which is roughly the average power used by a hundred homes."

So they delete it. "no original research"

Now that's just an imaginary example, but I've seen it happen. Pointing out that 1 plus 1 equals 2 gets deleted because the editors don't like the implications.

So I add something like "However, quick recharging itself may be problematic because of the high stress it puts on the local electricity grid."

So they slap it with (citation needed) and eventually delete the comment.

So I add an explaination "For example, recharging a 24 kWh battery in 5 minutes equals 288 kW of power which is roughly the average power used by a hundred homes."

So they delete it. "no original research"

So what is the problem? The example clearly violated the wikipedia guidelines (no cites, original research) and they were perfectly consistent in deleting those edits. Why would you be angry about that? Unless, of course, you didn't read the guidelines before posting.

So what is the problem? The example clearly violated the wikipedia guidelines (no cites, original research) and they were perfectly consistent in deleting those edits. Why would you be angry about that? Unless, of course, you didn't read the guidelines before posting.

Because pointing out the obvious isn't "research", and doesn't need to be cited because it can be derived from the information already on the page.

It would be silly if demand someone else to say "Quickly charging electric cars requires oodles of power" before they'll consider adding it to the page.

The only motivation behind such behaviour is the need to frame the article in a specific way by emphasis and de-emphasis on different points to obscure certain facts that the editors don't like.

All the facts in the world at your fingertips, and people still keep doing the same dumb things. Maybe potential contributors have just decided to do something else more worthwhile, like taking their kids to the park?

Granted, you could technically demand pedantry and require citations for things like how much power the average household uses, but that would be beside the point of the example which was to provide a sense of scale.

If you aren't allowed simple math without a nod from some "reputable source" that says 1 plus 1 does indeed equal 2, then what can you do?

Granted, you could technically demand pedantry and require citations for things like how much power the average household uses,

Since wikipedia is read globally pointing out the household requirements from one country is probably a bad idea, anyways.

Adding to that the notion that grid instability (again basing this 'knowledge' on one country) is a very subjective one - unless you back it up by data.

Using uncited factoids that may (or may not) be true for the US (i.e. less than 5% of the world population) to declare an article as worthy of criticism that is relevant to everyone on the globe (electric cars) is something I'd delete, too, if I were an editor.

Add to that the fact that grid stability has nothing to do with the thrust of the issue (i.e. theoretical reload times for batteries) this looks, to me, more and more like an open-and-shut case of not following the guidelines.

I think it's inevitable that Wikipedia becomes mediocre at best. It is the perfect example of a committee. You will have an equal number of not-so-smarts removing or modifying entries from those who are smart as well as posting their own not-so-smart crap. Why would smart people want to work on Wikipedia when an idiot can go in there 5 minutes later and remove or modify it back to mediocrity or just wrong? I'm speaking from experience.

Anyone considered a hard copy version of Wikipedia to be produced every few months - quartely and sold for a fee? In this day and age, I really worry about the loss of electronic knowledge sources like Wikipedia. Britannica and other traditional encyclopedic sources just don't have the same materials, breadth, or update frequency that W does - not to mention an their totally off planet costs.

Would love to have access to CD or other non-net based copy and would be willing to pay a minimal fee for it that reflected copying costs and support to Wikipedia's continuing existence.

Add to that the fact that grid stability has nothing to do with the thrust of the issue (i.e. theoretical reload times for batteries) this looks, to me, more and more like an open-and-shut case of not following the guidelines.

Unless the article is about electric cars in general.

One could easily leave out the comparison to household electricity consumption, or specify it more clearly like, "Which is roughly the average power consumption of 70-100 homes in the UK" and point to a reference. That wouldn't change a thing.

The issue in the example is that the problem is trivially demonstratable by a simple calculation based on known and presented facts in the article. This is what the "guardians" don't want to show because it highlights some of the practical problems with the thing they are trying to promote with the article.

They could just delete the unverifiable bits. They choose to remove it all. That speaks of intentional bias and corruption.

It still has nothing to do with electric vehicles. That's a grid/supplier problem. If the site talks about electric vehicles then electric vehicles is what it talks about. Talking about the grid in the same article is massively besides the point.

Whether a completely unmodified grid, as it exists today in some selected countries, can handle x number of electric vehicles or not is nonsense speculation because it posits that something changes (number of electric cars) while something which will undoubtedly be altered as a response doesn't change (grid infrastructure).

Now if you had posted your criticisms on a site that is devoted to an 'electric economy' (as opposed to say an 'hydrogen economy') or 'current grid layout' then that would be - marginally - relevant.

Anyone considered a hard copy version of Wikipedia to be produced every few months

Yes. Though it seems somewhat unwieldy (the depicted book contains 0.01% of Wikipedia)

http://www.labnol...ok/9136/

I'm not sure I would want to pack my library with 10000 of those every few months - even if they were cheap.

And the further problem is that on topics such as the electric car, the articles tend to get re-written periodically by new people to better represent the state of the art for the subject.

And they tend to be re-written by people who are less critical and more enthusiastic, which means that the previous critical text gets conveniently replaced and the criticism omitted again.

It still has nothing to do with electric vehicles. That's a grid/supplier problem. If the site talks about electric vehicles then electric vehicles is what it talks about. Talking about the grid in the same article is massively besides the point.

It has everything to do with electric vehicles if you claim or insinuate that they can be recharged that quickly, and then disregard the fact that it may not be practically viable. Potential supply side problems are problems for the electric vehicle and leaving them out is telling just half the truth.

It's like saying "Scientists have developed a new gizmo that generates enough power to run your entire house for a year.", and then disregarding the fact that you need a kilo of pure platinum to fuel it.

It makes you believe that the recharging issue is solved. You just need these new batteries, so electric cars are viable according to the article. But the situation is not that simple.

Wikipedia is being killed by editorial bullies.

Consider Steven Slater, the JetBlue flight attendant, who dramatically quiet his job last August by taking two beers and left by the emergency slide. A dozen songs were written about him. He was the top news story in August 2010. Time magazine rated him first and second in two its people lists at the end of 2010. But Wikipedia deletes articles on him due to lack of suitable notability--against its own rules.

Do your own homework--check Steven Slater out on wikipedia now--you get sent to "JetBlue flight attendant incident" -- he is not even given a separate subsection. Articles exist for sports people if they win only on two occasions a minor sports competition. But Steven Slater is for "wikilegal" reasons is not a suitable subject for wikipedia.

If Jimmy Wales or anyone wants to understand why Wikipedia is losing editors go now and create a new article on Steven Slater and see the darkside of Wikipedia.

Good Example 1 of many

I would love to update many of the entries on Australian Rules Football but I am put off by the editing interface. I agree that it needs to be simplified if Wikipedia is to maintain or grow its editorial base.

It has everything to do with electric vehicles if you claim or insinuate that they can be recharged that quickly,

Well, they CAN recharge that quickly. That's entirely correct - even by scientific standards. The 'insinuation' that this would work in any grid under any circumstances for millions of cars is all in your mind (I'm betting that wasn't explicitly asserted in the article).

That's what 'Neutral point of view' means. You stick to the facts of the issue at hand - nothing more, nothing less.

It's like saying "Scientists have developed a new gizmo that generates enough power to run your entire house for a year.", and then disregarding the fact that you need a kilo of pure platinum to fuel it

Surprisingly that's EXACTLY how scientific papers are written. You supply the full info of what you do. If it takes a kg of Pu then that will be in there. But there will certainly not be a word about disposal of the waste (since that is not part of the subject of the paper)

It makes you believe that the recharging issue is solved. You just need these new batteries, so electric cars are viable according to the article. But the situation is not that simple.

You really need to stop interpreting articles that are in encyclopedia. They are not tabloids. They are trying to present facts in a neutral way. Read every sentence exactly as it stands there. If the sentence contains a falsehood then attack it.

But if you think that the articles insinuate, hint, dissembel or in any other way try to mislead you then you need to take a long, hard look at your own reading habits first.

But if you think that the articles insinuate, hint, dissembel or in any other way try to mislead you then you need to take a long, hard look at your own reading habits first.

What a twisted way of looking at it! If an article seems misleading, biased or simply incorrect then you suggest that its the readers fault!! I guess your a fanatic fanboy of Wikipedia.

I don't contribute anymore because most "contributors" are actually "deletors", it takes quite a bit of work to integrate information in to existing articles and get all the citation correct.

I've had numerous occasions where I've put in the work, and then had someone just delete it, or reverse changes.

It's demoralizing, and the bureaucratic culture of wikipedia encourages deletion over contribution, which is also discouraging. The question of what is notable a article is so subjective to make its implication completely worthless. I'm not sure how to encourage the growth of wikipedia, but I think the first start is to discourage people who are addicted to the delete button.

If an article seems misleading, biased or simply incorrect then you suggest that its the readers fault!!

Of course - IF (and that is a big if) no falsehood is presented then the article is correct. Omissions are perfectly fine. Articles are only held up to present the truth. Not the 'whole truth' as a random reader sees it (i.e. inclding all the things another reader might think are relevant to the subject at hand).

This is common practice in scientific articles. You write exarly what you did. But you need not write what you DIDNT do. And you are also not required to point out limits one might overlook if one were to extrapolate (e.g. if you find something that cures cancer in mice then you're not responsible for someone falsely believing that it could cure cancer in humans)

In the case of the electric cars article: The car/battery manufacturers are not responsible for the grid. Attacking the cars because of the shortecomings of the grid is not warranted.

I suppose by that convoluted logic you could NOT 'attack' ICE based car pollution because the shortcomings of the atmosphere are not the car makers responsibility!

Omissions are perfectly fine.

Do you mean that its okay to exclude evidence that is contrary to your 'truth' so as to avoid potential falsification. When did that become scientific?

Something indeed seems to be very wrong within Wikipedia. I just discovered the Wikipedia page http://de.wikiquo...Einstein (German only, sorry) where administrator "Histo" repeatedly is personally insulting other editors whereas their comments are in no way offensive.
If this misbehaviour is possible then (at least the German section of) Wikipedia is in part beginning to rot.

Omissions are perfectly fine.

Interesting statement.
You know the term "unperson"? You know how news media distort the political truth? You know what Dshugashvili (Stalin) did with the photographs of Lew Davidovitch Bronstein (Trotzki)?

But you are justifiying the division of societies into those who know and those who don't need to know by withholding information?
Now you only need to explain which group of people is to decide what the dumb majority doesn't need to know.

Do you mean that its okay to exclude evidence that is contrary to your 'truth' so as to avoid potential falsification.

I mean that it's perfectly OK to say that car batteries can be charged at such and such a rate. That this may cause problems with the grid in one smallish country in the world is such an obscure point that it doesn't need to be mentioned (if you say that you must mention such things then you will also have to discuss a lot of other factors which have not a lot to do with the TECHNICAL aspect of recharging batteries.)

But you are justifiying the division of societies into those who know and those who don't need to know by withholding information?

No. I only say that people need to learn how to read articles instead of interpreting stuff that isn't there (or adding stuff that isn't relevant to the SPECIFIC topic).

Something indeed seems to be very wrong within Wikipedia. I just discovered the Wikipedia page http://de.wikiquo...Einstein (German only, sorry) where administrator "Histo" repeatedly is personally insulting other editors whereas their comments are in no way offensive.

German only is OK by me (I'm german). I read through the discussion. To base a verdict of 'rotting' of wikipedia pages on the actions of one admin for one page is rather extreme, don't you think?
That said: the posters criticising the actions of the admin were merely complaining (about the admin putting a limit on a privilege being given OVER AND ABOVE the normal wikipedia guidelines - because that privilege was starting to be abused) They were not making any salient points as how to rectify the situation.

Even the calmest admin will have to say a few drastic words once in a while to get the point accross when spoiled brats think they're entitled to stuff just because in the past an exception was made.

Many people became dissatisfied after Wikipedia began cutting tons of entries in an effort to consolidate. This is viewed as a censorship of information based arbitrarily on what Wikipedia views as important. Wikipedia was originally supposed to be a repository for all information; go figure that its biggest and most faithful supporters are leaving in droves after it changed its future vision.

Wikipedia was originally supposed to be a repository for all information; go figure that its biggest and most faithful supporters are leaving in droves after it changed its future vision.

Cut the quantity and preserve the quality. If all the 'casual' posters leave and the quality posters remain then that can only be for the good.

Whereas exactly the opposite outcome occurs: the quality posters leave and the low quality deleters remain. The Wikipedia principle of free information sharing apparently hit its own limit.

That remains to be seen. Those who administer the sites do, on average, stick more to the guidelines than those who don't. So I see not much danger of 'wanton deletion of quality content'

E.g. the content deleted which was discussed in this thread was not quality content. In that case the site just got better - not worse.

I do support the concept of opened extensive encyclopaedia by Jadxia, i.e. this one which collects large amount of information together with their sources. The decision, what's quality and what already not is in my competency, not of some moderators. It helps to keep Wikipedia source comprehensive and unbiased. The so-called experts are often just a brake of the further evolution, because they cannot see wider connections (between another reasons).

http://www.realcl...170.html

Anyway, from the moment, when I'm deleted from such site, I'm just stopping to support it - it's logical and predictable reaction. Every deleter is a saboteur of open encyclopaedia idea in this connection.