Wikimedia Foundation Director admitted that Wikipedia has serious problems

Next: The Board of Attorneys of the Wikimedia Foundation calls for modernization and openness .

Sue Gardner (Sue Gardner), a former journalist (that says it all, many journalists are honest people with principles), and since December 2007, the executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation has issued a message . We all understand what it was about. Sue clearly hinted that on Wikipedia, there was a crackdown to enforce “order” and that this was unacceptable and put in place impudent opponents of the principle “freedom is better than not freedom”, which lead Wikipedia into a trap. I will give a shortened version under the cut.

A few months ago, the Wikimedia Foundation conducted some research to better understand the internal dynamics of our communities. The result of this was a study of the tendencies shown by editors , during which five main languages ​​of Wikipedia were studied: English, German, Russian, French and Japanese.
')
A study of editorial trends tells us that between 2005 and 2007, newcomers had problems with successfully joining the Wikimedia community. Until 2005, about 40% of the new editors were still active on the English Wikipedia after a year after their first edit. After 2007, only about 12-15% of the new editors were still active after a year since their first edit. After 2007, many people were still trying to become Wikipedia editors. What has changed is that they are all more incapable of integrating into the Wikipedia community and more and more quickly facing failure. It has become too difficult to join the Wikimedia community.

These general patterns also appeared in the other languages ​​we studied.

Our research shows that our communities are aging , which is probably a direct result of these trends. I do not mean the increase in the average age of editors: we are talking about the time spent in the project. Beginners make fewer edits than ever before; the number of newcomers is decreasing . This is a problem for everyone , because it means that experienced editors have to take on the ever-increasing burden, and there are fewer and fewer people who are ready to perform the functions of bureaucrats and administrators. Experienced Wikipedians have observed these changes for years : for the first time, we have data confirming what they were talking about.

I am informed that participation in 2001, 2003 or 2005 was more satisfying and more exciting than now. I think this is partly ordinary nostalgia, but I suppose some of this is true .

I believe that we should make editing again a pleasure for everyone : for both new and experienced editors. Some of you are not sure that we can do this without compromising quality. My personal opinion is that this is a false decision, and even a trap. Quality and openness go hand in hand : if it were not true, then Wikipedia would not exist - it simply could not exist! Wikipedia is the largest and most frequently used information resource in the history of mankind. Openness does its job.

So, where quality assurance mechanisms are beating on bona fide newcomers, they should be replaced by other mechanisms that will maintain quality and at the same time bring less unintended harm . Involving new members will reduce the burden, and the contribution of each will bring greater satisfaction to each. I also believe that we need to expand our activities that will help the development of new members and help everyone feel welcome and valuable .

Sue gardner
Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation


<sup>This text is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license .
You may copy, edit and use this text for commercial purposes with the obligatory indication of authorship.

translation authors: strategy.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=March_2011_Update/ru&action=history</sup>

Read the full version at strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/March_2011_Update/en

Read the Wikipedia discussion here.

How can you not remember the words of President Rashi : “Wikipedia is a living organism, and not a machine for the reproduction of the dominant ideas. She can not keep on twisted nuts. And it is also obvious that excessively harsh orders, an excess of controllers-administrators usually lead not to the triumph of good, but if expressed in modern style, not to the victory over vandalism, but to its strengthening, not to the development of the system, not to improving the quality of articles, but to degradation. Therefore, it is extremely important to give Wikipedia members chances ... ”

UPD : I absolutely do not like the tone of comments like "I will not waste time on Wikipedia, my nerves are more expensive." As you do not understand, that this is exactly what they want. If we even talk about the fact that someone did not participate in the project, so they should get out of the project, not you. You, normal participants should become the majority and should not leave the project, but, on the contrary, more actively participate in it.