I echo Amir.
On 8 Mar 2013 06:42, "Amir E. Aharoni" <amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
> Hi Nikhil, and everyone else,
>
> I thought about writing a detailed reply about how that article is
> exaggerated ("*Nobody* wants to edit anymore"? Really, nobody?), and
> how the problems that you describe are just one side of the story
> (because the bureaucracy may be annoying, but it's a necessary evil,
> bla, bla, bla), but I decided to write something else:
>
> You don't like the over-bureaucratic English Wikipedia?
> Fine.
> Do you know a language other than English? If you're in India, then
> you probably do.
> Go to the Wikipedia in that language and edit it.
> It may have some issues, too - bureaucracy, political arguments,
> "wheel wars" - but these issues are guaranteed to be smaller that they
> are in the English Wikipedia.
>
> And besides, Wikipedia in ANY language other than English needs more
> articles, more writers, and more love. The people who speak that
> language will appreciate you immensely. Maybe they won't tell you
> directly that they appreciate it immensely, but I promise you that
> they will.
>
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> “We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
>
>
> 2013/3/6 Nikhil Sheth <nikhil...@gmail.com>:
> > Sharing an article I came across on Daily Dot (followed it from the
> > vandalism article shared in an earlier mail), dated January 04, 2013
> >
> > Nobody wants to edit Wikipedia anymore :
> >
> http://www.dailydot.com/business/wikipedia-editors-decline-wikimedia-fellows/
> >
> > excerpt (and I've underlined what I found significant):
> >
> > That's the question Wikipedia leaders and social science researchers are
> > tackling. They've documented a drastic decline in the retention of new
> > Wikipedia editors over the last five years.
> >
> > A new study published in the American Behavioral Science Journal by
> former
> > Wikimedia Fellows says Wikipedia has lost some 30 percent of its
> > English-language editors since 2006, as a result of off-putting automated
> > rejections, restrictive new rules, and controlling older editors.
> >
> > "What was most surprising was the scale of the problem," lead researcher
> > Aaron Halfaker told the Daily Dot.
> >
> > Founded in 2001, Wikipedia was a first-of-its-kind experiment in online
> > collaboration. Anyone who desired could sign up and become an editor,
> > contributing to any of the site's entries, which now include more than 23
> > million topics. This openness allowed Wikipedia to cover a much wider
> range
> > of subjects than a traditional encyclopedia, but it also made the
> project a
> > source of criticism for its frequency of misinformation, either through
> > accidental mistakes or deliberate vandalism.
> >
> > That's why Wikipedia instituted new rules in 2007 to improve the quality
> of
> > information, but according to Halfaker, these same rules have driven away
> > more than just the unwanted vandals.
> >
> > In 2006, only about 6 percent of "quality" new editors had their
> > contributions rejected—a.k.a. "reverted" in Wikipedia lingo. In 2010, the
> > number of contributions by new editors were being reverted at a rate of
> > 1-in-4 by senior editors and the site's own automated response systems.
> >
> > Halfaker said that as a result, only about 11 percent of new editors have
> > been staying on past their first two months, driving down the total
> number
> > of contributors to the site. He said part of that has to do with the
> "nasty"
> > initial experience many new editors have.
> >
> > If you're a new Wikipedia editor, the first message you get is usually
> from
> > a bot or a semi-automated editing tool. It'll warn you of such issues as
> > "lack of sources" or "blanking" and is designed to deter vandals or
> > "bad-faith editors."
> >
> > (sorry some links from the article were lost in this paste.. do see the
> > original..)
> >
> > I recently blogged a rant about this myself:
> >
> > Go a little easy on people who are starting to contribute; love,
> > encourage and forgive them instead of being so critical and punishing.
> > Create page-tags/templates that can illustrate the fact that it's a
> > work-in-progress, assign this status by default on new articles so a
> > newbie isn't expected to already have advanced skills (which is a
> > stupid, stupid thing wikipedia is doing right now. Adding references and
> > templates is difficult, period. Don't expect a person with less than 50
> > edit counts to know or even want to learn about it). When a visitor
> > comes at a page, maybe an age or number of edits can be displayed at the
> > top to convey an idea of how mature or immature the article is.
> >
> > Having permanent-tenure editors is as bad an idea as having permanent
> > bureaucrats or government leaders: There should be limited terms and
> > off-periods between them and retirement times; that will be good for the
> > editing community and will encourage editors to pass the baton on rather
> > than be in a permanent status contest of entrenchment, edit-counts,
> > deletions etc that I see at present. I got totally turned off at the
> > last wikipedia meetup I attended in my city when people started showing
> > off their edit-counts and were treating them like army medals. Many of
> > the veteran editors today would never have participated in Wikipedia if
> > they'd faced the kind of treatment given to newbies today. Obviously,
> > this is an unsustainable model and headed for collapse when the present
> > generation of editors dies out. Remove any element of competition; there
> > is no such thing as healthy competition. There is no need for
> > wikipedia's editors to have an obsessive compulsive quality control
> > behaviour : we are NOT competing with peer-reviewed journals or
> > mainstream publications; we are NOT supposed to be 100% accurate
> > "no-matter-what". That much is obvious in the disclaimers; we need to
> > remind the editors lobby about it. Quality is achieved through time,
> > love, room for experimentation and prolonged attention; not through
> > rushed editing and deletions. Beware of throwing out the baby with the
> > bathwater.
> >
> > -------
> > I can expect what the standard set of responses to this would be.
> > I should not rant.
> > Wikipedia has standards.
> > Don't blame the system for your weakness.
> > Only the worthy shall find the grail.
> > So and so textbook definition of so and so rule or word.
> > The iceberg hasn't hit any of the Indian ships yet so we're ok, full
> steam
> > ahead.
> >
> > Yatta yatta. But I suspect I still won't find anything that addresses the
> > core issue : Why am I and so many others turned off by wikipedia's
> defence
> > mechanism and its assumption that everyone out there wants to steal its
> > preciousss? Why is no outreach programme or training workshop going to
> work
> > on me?
> >
> > I can see some parallels here: with the setting in of rigid structures,
> > things take a downturn and the ones at the top/center get full of it.
> And to
> > control things they end up designing mechanisms that only end up
> prosecuting
> > the innocent. Everywhere : schools, governments, societies, NGOs,
> companies,
> > families, even wikipedia. The only place I don't see rigidity setting in
> > with time is Nature : obviously she realized some merits of disorder
> that we
> > haven't grasped yet.
> >
> > But I will still keep asking:
> > Had all these bots and senior editors and all this mind-boggling
> > complicatedness been present when Wikipedia began, would it ever have
> taken
> > off?
> > Where in all the asap-reversions and immediate judgements is there any
> > desire for long-term sustainability?
> > Why would any organisation on this planet even have limited terms and
> > retirement ages for their executive members if they weren't necessary?
> > Why is flowing out not seen as a natural precondition to flowing in?
> > When has the relentless pursuit of perfection, at the cost of human
> > connections and vulnerability, made anyone happy?
> > Why does wikipedia today look more like it is ruled by fear than by love?
> >
> > --
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Nikhil Sheth
> > +91-966-583-1250
> > Udaipur/Pune, India
> > Self-designed learner at Swaraj University
> > http://www.nikhilsheth.tk
> > http://www.facebook.com/nikjs
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
> > Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
> Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
