I've been active with Wikipedia since 2006. My impression (which corresponds with data) is that 2008 was the year with the highest number of editors on English Wikipedia. While it may sound good on paper, in some ways it was a mess because of the frequency of vandalism. Nowadays I know there are more automated techniques for detecting vandalism, but if you want to increase the number of users just to make the stats look good, you're going to get more dubious data into the encyclopedia as well as frustration from editors who dislike spending their time on so much maintenance (although I'm sure there are some editors who would jump at the chance to make corrections all day).
I suspected from the outset of Wikipedia's creation that the project would mirror the well-known "life cycle of email lists" as I've always believed Wikipedia is a "social encyclopedia." I feel this well-known meme accurately reflect's Wikipedia's evolution so I repeat it here as a tool from which to learn: *1. Initial enthusiasm* (people introduce themselves, and gush a lot about how wonderful it is to find kindred souls). *2. Evangelism* (people moan about how few folks are posting to the list, and brainstorm recruitment strategies). *3. Growth* (more and more people join, more and more lengthy threads develop, occasional off-topic threads pop up). *4. Community* (lots of threads, some more relevant than others; lots of information and advice is exchanged; experts help other experts as well as less experienced colleagues; friendships develop; people tease each other; newcomers are welcomed with generosity and patience; everyone -- newbie and expert alike -- feels comfortable asking questions, suggesting answers, and sharing opinions). *5. Discomfort with diversity* (the number of messages increases dramatically; not every thread is fascinating to every reader; people start complaining about the signal-to-noise ratio; person 1 threatens to quit if *other* people don't limit discussion to person 1's pet topic; person 2 agrees with person 1; person 3 tells 1 & 2 to lighten up; more bandwidth is wasted complaining about off-topic threads than is used for the threads themselves; everyone gets annoyed). *6a. Smug complacency and stagnation* (the purists flame everyone who asks an 'old' question or responds with humor to a serious post; newbies are rebuffed; traffic drops to a doze-producing level of a few minor issues; all interesting discussions happen by private email and are limited to a few participants; the purists spend lots of time self-righteously congratulating each other on keeping off-topic threads off the list). *OR* *6b. Maturity* (a few people quit in a huff; the rest of the participants stay near stage 4, with stage 5 popping up briefly every few weeks; many people wear out their second or third 'delete' key, but the list lives contentedly ever after). I feel Wikipedia is at stage 6 (both a and b). Unless there's a significant change in functionality and design, the days of 2008 will never return, and we should stop bothering to think it's possible to replicate them (because their existence was due to the novelty of the project). Instead, I think Wikimedia projects should cultivate those individuals with specialized knowledge. A lot of these people are in specialized communities (for example educators, medical professionals, researchers/scholars, devoted amateurs). These are communities which formerly looked down on Wikipedia but now are reconsidering their formerly negative opinions of the encyclopedia. I feel the as-yet small successes in the medical and GLAM communities (I am sure there are others) show great promise. Being part of the GLAM community, I know there are outreach efforts underway to others within that community. Being part of WM NYC, I know there's a lot of librarians involved in chapter activities--and most of those activities take place in libraries or museums (often museum libraries). Until this year, the WMF showed no real interest in continuous engagement and dialogue with the community that edits the projects. I totally agree with the person who said WMF needs to have a marketing department. This is especially true for the kinds of research which marketers report on and are typical of any organization, profit or non-profit. That would be a first step: Understanding who are the variety of its users/editors from which it can then create action items to determine how it can increase the number of users by going after specific market segments. This would not eliminate the "anyone can edit" ethos, but could be a more effective means to increasing users rather than appealing to a broad public. Bob Bob Kosovsky, Ph.D. -- Curator, Rare Books and Manuscripts, Music Division, The New York Public Library for the Performing Arts blog: http://www.nypl.org/blog/author/44 Twitter: @kos2 Listowner: OPERA-L ; SMT-ANNOUNCE ; SoundForge-users - My opinions do not necessarily represent those of my institutions - *Inspiring Lifelong Learning* | *Advancing Knowledge* | *Strengthening Our Communities *
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
