Impressions of Wikimania 2010
In a nutshell: you can read this 2006 news ; nothing in Wikipedia has seriously changed since then.
So, on July 9-11, an annual conference of Wikipedians was held in Gdansk. 300-350 people got together, it was interesting. This year, Wikimania was combined with WikiSym - a wiki general symposium (not pedias). Both here and there many interesting facts were voiced during the debate and many useful conclusions were made. So.
First, as the voting showed, the majority of participants at the conference for the first time. Strangely enough, this contradicted expert opinions about the presence of a permanent core of participants of 300 people. It seems, after all, in the movement of high turnover. People come, light up, participate, disappoint, leave.
')
Secondly, in the ranks of the leadership of Wikipedia serious progress is noticeable since the last time I was interested. Jimbo Wales looked very tired and (here is a simple Russian word), participated almost as an honored guest. As I understand it, he has serious personal problems. The Wikimedia Foundation is now managed by some kind of hell, about which I can’t say anything, at the conference itself, Sue Gardner, the new executive officer, in the past, the manager in some journalistic workshop, spoke on behalf of the management. Today, the Wikimedia Foundation is a well-funded charity. Last year, Wikimedia raised $ 10mln, while Greenpeace raised about $ 200mln. Wikimedia management obviously sees potential for growth, plans to expand the state from 40 to 80, and up to 180 people in perspective. It smelled like Parkinson law . Indeed, in a period of exponential growth, there were three in the staff. But growth (enwiki) stopped that year in 2007 and, apparently, according to the law of conservation of momentum, the state began to grow.
Thirdly, there were boring ruthless numbers, a lot. Erik, the wikistatics guru, reported that the number of new participants in enwiki is declining, but the number of active ones is stable. Finnish Wikipedia is rapidly becoming deserted, while the Russian is booming. In general, the topic of the extinction of the English pedia was touched on by many. Andrew Lee, for example, noticed that 50-80% of users clicked “Edit”, but they don’t get to “Save” - presumably, they will be embarrassed with wiki notes and other things. Howie Fung reported the results of the poll “why did you leave Wikipedia?”. The results did not surprise: half of them had more important things to do, a quarter of them had quarreled with other editors, a quarter said that everything had become difficult, too many rules, and this is no longer a fan.
Fourth, the understanding of the picture of events by the participants is rather holistic. A typical Wikipedian player is described as “a lone white young man, student or graduate student” and a visual inspection of the audience fully confirms this. Young Polish professor Dariusz Jemielniak unrealistically lit up his lecture about the motivation of wiki editors. In his opinion, these young people are being drawn in for illusory recognition and authority; when they achieve recognition in real life (academic degree, good work, family), they lose interest. Such an online game like Warcraft is, of course, socially more useful, but on the other hand, less profitable (Warcraft raises about $ 1 bln per year). By the way, girls in Wikipedia 15%. As the main reason for the imbalance, it was mentioned that disputes online at elevated notes scare them, rather than provoke them, like boys.
A magic fracture of Wikipedia’s growth in March 2007 was mentioned a couple of times. The optimistic version that does not grow because there is nothing more to add, refuted Andrew Lee: the change occurred simultaneously in several pedias, which are in different stages of evolution. I personally very much suspect that the turning point was connected with the history of Essjay - an expelled student posing as a professor of theology. Perhaps this scandal showed the "wrong side" of Wikipedia and reduced the attractiveness of the project for the target audience. It is also possible that the role was played by tightening the screws after the scandal or some other factor.
The most disturbing observation was that it seems that today's Wikipedia administration is trying to follow the path of attracting new masses of (free) labor force, strongly promoting Wikipedia here and there. I have heard much less about improving the efficiency, motivation and retention of the current community than I wanted, and mostly from non-affiliated persons.
In general, I was pleased with the way things are going on in German Wikipedia - everything is neat and disciplined. Up to the point that they experiment with the system of “patronage”, when a veteran trains a beginner. This is the Germans.
In general, it can be stated that the current technical and social platform of Wikipedia has grown to the ceiling. No breakthroughs are foreseen. National versions that are lagging behind the English phase will continue to develop, and then they will also go into the mode of preserving what has been achieved, i.e. conservation. The staff of the Wikimedia Foundation will grow, but this is unlikely to affect anything. Wikipedia of the late 2000s will be considered a “classic edition” - the same as the 11th edition of Britannica.
So, on July 9-11, an annual conference of Wikipedians was held in Gdansk. 300-350 people got together, it was interesting. This year, Wikimania was combined with WikiSym - a wiki general symposium (not pedias). Both here and there many interesting facts were voiced during the debate and many useful conclusions were made. So.
First, as the voting showed, the majority of participants at the conference for the first time. Strangely enough, this contradicted expert opinions about the presence of a permanent core of participants of 300 people. It seems, after all, in the movement of high turnover. People come, light up, participate, disappoint, leave.
')
Secondly, in the ranks of the leadership of Wikipedia serious progress is noticeable since the last time I was interested. Jimbo Wales looked very tired and (here is a simple Russian word), participated almost as an honored guest. As I understand it, he has serious personal problems. The Wikimedia Foundation is now managed by some kind of hell, about which I can’t say anything, at the conference itself, Sue Gardner, the new executive officer, in the past, the manager in some journalistic workshop, spoke on behalf of the management. Today, the Wikimedia Foundation is a well-funded charity. Last year, Wikimedia raised $ 10mln, while Greenpeace raised about $ 200mln. Wikimedia management obviously sees potential for growth, plans to expand the state from 40 to 80, and up to 180 people in perspective. It smelled like Parkinson law . Indeed, in a period of exponential growth, there were three in the staff. But growth (enwiki) stopped that year in 2007 and, apparently, according to the law of conservation of momentum, the state began to grow.
Thirdly, there were boring ruthless numbers, a lot. Erik, the wikistatics guru, reported that the number of new participants in enwiki is declining, but the number of active ones is stable. Finnish Wikipedia is rapidly becoming deserted, while the Russian is booming. In general, the topic of the extinction of the English pedia was touched on by many. Andrew Lee, for example, noticed that 50-80% of users clicked “Edit”, but they don’t get to “Save” - presumably, they will be embarrassed with wiki notes and other things. Howie Fung reported the results of the poll “why did you leave Wikipedia?”. The results did not surprise: half of them had more important things to do, a quarter of them had quarreled with other editors, a quarter said that everything had become difficult, too many rules, and this is no longer a fan.
Fourth, the understanding of the picture of events by the participants is rather holistic. A typical Wikipedian player is described as “a lone white young man, student or graduate student” and a visual inspection of the audience fully confirms this. Young Polish professor Dariusz Jemielniak unrealistically lit up his lecture about the motivation of wiki editors. In his opinion, these young people are being drawn in for illusory recognition and authority; when they achieve recognition in real life (academic degree, good work, family), they lose interest. Such an online game like Warcraft is, of course, socially more useful, but on the other hand, less profitable (Warcraft raises about $ 1 bln per year). By the way, girls in Wikipedia 15%. As the main reason for the imbalance, it was mentioned that disputes online at elevated notes scare them, rather than provoke them, like boys.
A magic fracture of Wikipedia’s growth in March 2007 was mentioned a couple of times. The optimistic version that does not grow because there is nothing more to add, refuted Andrew Lee: the change occurred simultaneously in several pedias, which are in different stages of evolution. I personally very much suspect that the turning point was connected with the history of Essjay - an expelled student posing as a professor of theology. Perhaps this scandal showed the "wrong side" of Wikipedia and reduced the attractiveness of the project for the target audience. It is also possible that the role was played by tightening the screws after the scandal or some other factor.
The most disturbing observation was that it seems that today's Wikipedia administration is trying to follow the path of attracting new masses of (free) labor force, strongly promoting Wikipedia here and there. I have heard much less about improving the efficiency, motivation and retention of the current community than I wanted, and mostly from non-affiliated persons.
In general, I was pleased with the way things are going on in German Wikipedia - everything is neat and disciplined. Up to the point that they experiment with the system of “patronage”, when a veteran trains a beginner. This is the Germans.
In general, it can be stated that the current technical and social platform of Wikipedia has grown to the ceiling. No breakthroughs are foreseen. National versions that are lagging behind the English phase will continue to develop, and then they will also go into the mode of preserving what has been achieved, i.e. conservation. The staff of the Wikimedia Foundation will grow, but this is unlikely to affect anything. Wikipedia of the late 2000s will be considered a “classic edition” - the same as the 11th edition of Britannica.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/99277/
All Articles