Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125893981183759969.html

Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages

But unprecedented numbers of the millions of online volunteers who write, edit and police it are quitting.

That could have significant implications for the brand of democratization that Wikipedia helped to unleash over the Internet -- the empowerment of the amateur.

In the first three months of 2009, the English-language Wikipedia suffered a net loss of more than 49,000 editors, compared to a net loss of 4,900 during the same period a year earlier

Wikipedia contributors have been debating widely what is behind the declines in volunteers. One factor is that many topics already have been written about. Another is the plethora of rules Wikipedia has adopted to bring order to its unruly universe -- particularly to reduce infighting among contributors about write-ups of controversial subjects and polarizing figures.

Wikipedia is becoming a more hostile environment.

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, who is chairman emeritus of the foundation, acknowledges participation has been declining... But if the community has become more hostile to newbies, that's a correctable problem."

The Wikimedia Foundation employs a staff of 34, mostly in San Francisco...reported expenses of $5.6 million

In 2008, Wikipedia's editors deleted one in four contributions from infrequent contributors, up sharply from one in 10 in 2005.

"The community has created its own language, and that is certainly a barrier to new participants," he says.

One of Mr. Schulenburg's first projects, called the "bookshelf," is an effort to gather the basic rules for contributing to Wikipedia in one place for newcomers.

The future of Wikipedia may be in danger. This is a request for comment on how to improve Wikipedia. More specifically, can we address these issues mentioned above?

Subject 1: How to stop the decline in editors who contribute?

Subject 2: How to less the hostile environment. Mr. Wales says it is correctable but doesn't say how in the article.

Subject 3: Is a bookshelf or manual helpful? I suggested that a while ago and an administrator admonished me for doing so and suggested that I should shut up and said the way of doing things was already "very clearly laid down", which is not what this article says. If such bookshelf is helpful, should the community write it or be powerless and accept what we are given?

I prefer not to discuss subject 4 which is why 34 people and $5.6 million is needed. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem often seems to be that some editors are disputing edits without checking sources. I have found that when people disagree with the content being added they find an excuse to dispute it and if they can keep the debate going part time Wikipedians will take their work elsewhere or give up. I have done this myself at times. There should be preferential treatment for those who go to the trouble to look up sources and prepare the work. If someone disputes it they should have the option of checking the source then if it's wrong they can dispute it. Wikipedia claims it isn't censored if this is true they should accept research from reliable sources including academic sources. Academic sources should be more credible if they are peer reviewed than political sources that come to conclusions first then create spin to back it up. I have had this problem with the Preventing school violence page I created months ago but it was virtually deleted and replaced with a redirect by people who didn't check the work. Many others almost certainly had similar problems and left. Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the loss of editors we should be concerned about - it is the loss of good editors that should be a concern. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO a big source of frustration is inconsistency. WP used to be more of an anarchy and so anybody felt they could do whatever they wanted. Recent attempts to establish more rules and order are great but it is often the case that the rules are full of holes and, regardless, enforcement is extremely haphazard. Obviously scanning WP one can find well-written articles with banners and warnings placed all over them and poorly written articles that have nothing said about them at all. And I have seen it often the case that the winner of a policy debate is the editor who is willing to stay in the fight the longest. So I would be willing to bet that a number of editors who have left have done so because of what seems hypocrasy in applying the new rules that have come about in recent years (in addition to many non-serious editors who have left as well).

I would say that as WP establishes tighter policies it is equally important to establish practical ways to enforce those policies (i.e. establishing policies that are not enforced consistently makes the whole process seem like a joke). And part of that means having timely ways to have serious arbitration of disputes. To that end maybe rules have to be established that, if you want access to certain services (requesting arbitration, requesting peer reviews, requesting assessments, etc.) you have to agree to do a certain amount of community service (e.g. fulfilling some of these requests).

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]