Is Wikipedia Saturated? Yep! Last Year.
Aug 08, 2008
Commentary by Stephen Downes

Graph shows a sudden end to the exponential increase in edits to the Engloish version of Wikipedia. The author says it's saturation. But the sudden change also happens at about the same time the Wikipedia trolls editors started marking articles for deletion, complaining about the need for print-based references, and generally adding other non-constructive and annoying editorial comments. Total: 1770
[Direct Link] 45543
Comments

Re: Is Wikipedia Saturated? Yep! Last Year.

My impression was that the troll comments were good alerts to the possibility that the information was incomplete or misleading, especially in domains with which I have little familiarity. Might be annoying in an article on something I know a lot about, but then, I don't have to look at Wikipedia. In other words, I thought the troll comments added value, and were perhaps valudable feedback for the authors. A Wiki is not supposed to be a blog, is it? [Comment] [Permalink]

Re: Is Wikipedia Saturated? Yep! Last Year.

I agree that nitpicking has begun to change Wikipedia, but I don't think it's remotely fair to imply that the editors suggesting Articles for Deletion and such are trolls. Why, all of a sudden, would Wikipedia receive an onslaught of "trolls" such that it changes the entire course of Wikipedia?

I think a more neutral and logical (and correct) explanation is that Wikipedia reached critical mass. It truly became a valuable resource to so many people that it really became time to listen to people who questioned its quality and accuracy. As more people aimed to fix errors and cite debated facts, the quality began rising drastically.

I support a content management system as part of my full-time job. The elephant in the room when it comes to CMS's is that not everyone can do everything well. It turns out that although basically everyone online could add a sentence at the end of a Wikipedia article, relatively few of those people can make quality edits to the existing article. Fewer still are willing to become well-versed in the "rules" of Wikipedia.

Basically, anyone can sing, but when your audience wants to hear opera music, they need someone who has invested time in improving their skills. Yes, this is a huge shift in Wikipedia that really changes where it sits in the conversation about social media -- but you can either condemn the change or recognize it as an amazing fore-runner case study. Will shifts like this occur on other social media sites? (myspace embraced music, Facebook opened to non-college email addresses, etc.) [Comment] [Permalink]

Re: Is Wikipedia Saturated? Yep! Last Year.

no the lib of congress NYC lib and British lib all have over 50 m volumes wikipedia has be shut down check the edit numbers yourself since the spring of 2007 probably by major financial and political interest which plan to corner the internet itself by 2012

no more progress no more development no more science

just more evil

interesting that the cia now has intelipedia
and wall street has google

next they want to control all the tea in china

I hope this helps steve [Comment] [Permalink]



Your Comment

You can preview your comment and continue editing until you are satisfied with it. Comment will not be posted on the until you have clicked 'Done'.



Enter email to receive replies:

Your comments always remain your property, but in posting them here you agree to license under the same terms as this site CC By-NC-SA. If your comment is offensive it will be deleted.

Automated Spam-checking is in effect. If you are a registered user you may submit links and other HTML. Anonymous users cannot post links and will have their contents screened - certain words are prohibited and comments will be analyzed to make sure they make sense.