Wikipedia doesn't have cancer | Hacker News Reader

Wikipedia doesn't have cancer

medium.com

18 pointsandrew-lucker14 comments

Its growth is not a cancer, but there are many problems growing within wikipedia. It is not the same as it was a decade ago. The energy within the community of contributors is very different. It is now very difficult to break into the club. New contributors have trouble setting up new pages, and suffer profoundly negative experiences when those pages they do start are removed on the basis of opaque rules. Pages about minor historical figures are removed as stubs, while extensive articles about minor fictional characters live on. This shift from 'knowledge' to 'quality' has changed Wikipedia. If there is a cancer, it is the rise of powerful contributors and the disillusionment of people who simply want to share their knowledge of a subject.

Do you have some personal experience with that? If so, in what topic areas do you have difficulty adding content? What were your changes and why were they rejected?

These questions are oddly specific. If I might ask, do you have any sort of affiliation, paid or otherwise, with Wikipedia or WMF?

Not saying this to denigrate your line of questioning or to imply nefarious activity, but it's fair to get an answer to this on the record (contrary to the downvotes) given what you've asked.

uhhh nope =). Not sure why it's questionable to ask those questions. Just asking the parent to back up his rhetoric with actual examples.

From the HN guidelines:

Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

I actually agree with this as a guideline, but not as a rule. Since it's listed as a guideline, I'm not complaining.

I've (anecdotally) seen a number of cases where complaints have encouraged critical thinking on the part of voters as to whether a comment deserves a downvote or is being downvoted simply as a byproduct of groupthink. I know it's changed my mind on at least one occasion as it's gotten me to take into consideration that the person making the comment is surprised at the volume of downvotes, suggesting that the person writing the comment thought the comment would be less controversial, potentially warranting a deeper read.

I understand the desire to minimize complaints about downvotes, but like any good guideline, sometimes an alternative is more effective.

Is a contrivercial comment meant to be downvoted? If controvercial comments are discouraged HN is just another echo chamber. I only downvote things that do not contribute. Something that is controvercial by definition contributes at least something.

Talking about downvoted does at least expose some of the improper downvote storm. There is a population here that actively seeks to rescue comments that are downvoted simply for being unpopular. They should be allowed to express thier concerns somewhere.

I'm a lawyer and so have dabbled at contributing to articles about law. That is definitely the deep end of wikipedia editing, a deep end full of political sharks. I learned that lesson and will not return. When I mention this to other lawyers they chuckle. We've all tried and given up. "Let the kids have their fun" they say. I've also tried to clean up a few non-law articles, mostly ones with horrible structure and confusing use of language. That is also a deep end. Many of the lesser-edited articles are 'owned' by entrenched editors who don't take kindly to anyone touching their prose. I've thought about penning some new articles, but have run into what I now know as deletionism. That would be my third lesson, after which I basically washed my hands of the entire process. Too many demigods.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletionism http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/0...

The web makes it easier than ever before in human history to share your knowledge of a subject. Just make a web page and put anything on it that you want. Or contribute to any of the many online publications. It can even be a source of income. Why put up with the whims of some organization?

The author's argument basically boils down to "I like wikipedia, so I'm happy to see it grow. It's just getting started".

Which I would agree with, but doesn't really counteract any of the points of the original piece.

What real need is causing this rampant spending, and what should make us believe it is going to slow down in anyway.

"To make good on its dominant Encyclopedic role on the Internet, Wikimedia needs to grow."

Does it? What does "make good on its dominant Encyclopedic role" even mean?

That's just hogwash pretending to be a sentence.

I think the author makes some very valid points about how Wikipedia needs to adapt to the new generation.

But at the same time I still do worry about what was mentioned in the original Op Ed about one of the big companies getting their hands on Wikipedia.

So to reduce the risk to Wikipedia doesn't it make sense to split off Wikipedia from all these new ventures? That way if anything goes south Wikipedia still remains as is?

I read both articles and don't understand why wikipedia would ever have to sell. Would they really go bankrupt before putting in ads on the sidebar? I'm sure they understand the only reason another company would buy them is to monetize and they have the potential to very easily do that themselves (even though it's against their values). The only way I see wikipedia's downfall is if they make a lot of "unethical" choices over and over (e.g. allowing companies exclusive access to their articles, paid removal of articles, banning users because their articles don't reflect paid advertisers' ideas, etc)

Wikipedia's best insurance is their license. Anyone can start a clone anytime. Many actually do. I am not worried about the future.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com