renatawiki at gmail
Nov 5, 2009, 1:53 PM
Post #12 of 32
(697 views)
Permalink
|
I think is is most excellent write-up of my thoughts. Wikipedia is no longer
"new and exciting"... Internet's attention span is short & people are
looking for something more exciting to do. (that and all the community
behavior / communication issues that drive newbies away).
What to do about it?
a) Revolutionary software update
b) Friendlier community
c) Emphasize "we are not done yet - not even close"
Renata
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> I have been part of the wiki community for 6 years now. As I reflect
> on what I've seen over the years, I've developed a definite sense that
> the enthusiasm and energy in the community has waned. (I'm going to
> frame this discussion mostly in terms of the English Wikipedia, though
> I think it applies to most of the large, mature wikis.) It's a
> qualitative sense that the community is less active and excited about
> what they are doing today than they used to be. Some data supports
> this, like the declines in editor activity and administrator
> attrition, though I think I perceive it most directly as a change in
> the experience of being in the community.
>
> At the root, I think that Wikipedia is something of a victim of it's
> own success. We've written the largest encyclopedia in history,
> become a household name, and created a top web destination. Great
> job. What now?
>
> Most of our processes and policies have changed little in years. Most
> of the recent software changes are small and evolutionary rather than
> revolutionary. Compared to the days when parser functions, templates,
> cite, and other things were being introduced, it is rare to see
> changes that excite people and grow to be widely used. There are
> perhaps a few such things still promised on the horizon (e.g. open
> street maps), but mostly it seems like we've become satisfied with
> what we have and are slow to change. In the editing community, we see
> a growing interest in removing redlinks on the theory that if it
> hasn't been started yet how interesting can it really be, or worse
> deleting stubs and other incomplete articles because no one seems
> interested in finishing them. At the Foundation level, we see efforts
> to leverage Wikipedia with third party deals (e.g. Orange) and
> important incremental improvements (e.g. Usability), but it is rare to
> even consider whole new projects or have anyone articulate a grand new
> vision.
>
> I'm wondering what people think about this. On the one hand we could
> simply accept it. We've already created a world changing
> encyclopedia. We can embrace Wikipedia for what it is and accept that
> maintaining it will not be as exciting as building it. That's the
> direction I think we've implicitly been following, by inertia if no
> other reason. We allow the policies, processes, and structures we
> have now to become entrenched, and focus on ensuring that the work
> which already exists will persist into the future. That would still
> be a great achievement, but it is not sexy, and I think we would
> continue to see a slowing and contraction in the community. Filling
> in details and improving prose, isn't going to easily attract
> volunteers.
>
> On the other hand, I think we could try to recapture some of the
> vision and fire of our initial growth. Push for new tools (e.g.
> string functions, data storage mechanisms, new communication tools)
> and new projects (e.g. directory services, almanacs). There any many
> risks with innovating. It could backfire and damage what we have, but
> on the other hand having new things to do and a fresh vision could
> bring new energy to the community.
>
> Personally, I look at Wikimedia and think there is still a lot of room
> for expansion, innovation, and growth, but I also think we've become
> resistant to it.
>
> I'm wondering whether other people at the Foundation-l level perceive
> the same trends, and what they think about the balance between
> innovation and growth versus simply maintaining and solidifying the
> processes and products that we already have.
>
> -Robert Rohde
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
|
1
