49,000 Editors Leave Wikipedia
Did Wiki editors desert the online compendium during the first quarter 2009?
From Wikipedia ‘loses’ 49,000 editors:
Online encyclopaedia Wikipedia “lost” 49,000 of its volunteer editors in the first three months of 2009, University research suggests.
The figure compares with a loss of 4,900 over the same period in 2008.
The encyclopaedia-style website encourages editorial changes from everybody who comes to the site.
Wikimedia UK, a chapter of the organisation that operates Wikipedia, has denied that it means the site is struggling.
The report cites Felipe Ortega, from the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in Madrid, who carried out the research.
Wikipedia is a fine source for historical entries, but the online encyclopedia has been accused of biased editing on political entries.
During the John Edwards Scandal, Wikipedia banned all mention of the topic on its site–until Edwards confessed publicly.
This blackout occurred even though “Rielle Hunter”–Edwards’ mistress who carried his baby–was the most-searched term on Google during parts of December 2007 and in the weeks before Edwards confessed.
This was not the first time that Wikipedia had been accused of biased editing of political articles at the site. Does the desertion of 49000 editors have anything to do with this?
We await further reports.
An encyclopedia is not just about articles it’s about authority. With the Encyclopedia Britannica you know what you’re going to get, distinguished writers. With Wikipedia you never know what you’re get or what views have been summarily suppressed or who’s behind it. People get shut out of the editing ability all the time for personal pet peeves of the privileged editors, etc. On the other hand, Wiki is a great experiment in the lowest common denominator.
For a Wiki 2 I recommend that everybody’s views be made available via a menu, with the top level being the old one Wiki has now, and the menu set up to allow curious people to see alternative views sans editing, maybe with a global on/of switch while browsing. Too bad, I have no control over that mess nor does anyone else except the founders, who are techno geeks not scholars in the first place.
At least the Wiki software is available for free to anybody who wants to start their own encyclopedia, and they can institute their own policies, so maybe the net result will be one or several commercial encyclopedias built up by wise administrators who have a top level of writers chosen for their credentials a la Britannica and pay them royalties.
Writing used to be a paying profession, remember?
On the other hand, Britannica is pretty retro to not Wikify their encyclopedia and invite user editing, even if it’s reserved to a user-contributed level that’s kept separate from their own.
Let the market sort it out. The Internet is bigger than all of them.
[Reply]