Wikipedia losing editors, study says

Spot on. I tried to update the current population of my city since it was five years outdated and it was erased. It discouraged me from doing any other edits.

nothing is ever the same.. mTV, youtube, airline service, price for gas, common courtesy.

SpeedJan. 07, 2013 - 08:12AM JST

Spot on. I tried to update the current population of my city since it was five years outdated and it was erased. It discouraged me from doing any other edits.

Very true. Then add corporate interference in certain subjects (especially scientific ones) and existing editors that simply think they are infallible, and you have a recipe for a mass exodus of potential new (and knowledgeable) editors

my issue was- what constituted an editor? though Wikipedia is good for casual use without a proper vetting procedure our company cannot use it for research.

if you are not in the field how can you be an editor- even if you are in the field- unless your credentials are easily accessible then how can we as an industry believe what is said? Oh wait- I forgot- it's on the internet - so it MUST be true!

so they have a bit to go before it becomes credible for work, for Gundam robots, for casual overclocking- if you are a noob ok , but not much else

I think Wikipedia is overrated. If people without basic information on their subjects use it as a source of information they will be disappointed. Bye and bye the enthusiasm wanes. And this change of mood catches on on the editors.

It was a nice source until someone began telling Wikipedia that is not right to put so many details of storylines or characters in tv shows, movies, shows or comics. Then you can not get all the information you need, plus, that bot deleting potential good articles in the name of security is totally frustrating.

Too many people are using that site for advocacy over and against objectivity, and it is populated by editors forming affinity groups that make it more like a social networking site than an encyclopedia.

We all know that Wikipedia cannot be replaced with any other website, so Wikipedia needs to understand how they started this website and changing the basics is only going to hurt thier reputation!

It remains a very useful and valid source. The editing standards are good, and the only reason people don't see their entries accepted is usually that they don't take the time to list valid sources. You can't just go and edit, you have to provide a verifiable and proven source. It takes some time to learn the rules but that is standard for any kind of editing. I have been a Chief Editor for a publishing company and i see that the standards of W are just fine. Glad it is there and is doing well. to say it is in some kind of trouble because of some figure is just trying to make headlines. I would not worry too much about that, tho it did make a catchy headline for this article. I suggest that the editors here vet their submissions more carefully, or just put an "Opinion" tag on this sort of piece and then it will be fine.

CrisGerSanJan. 07, 2013 - 02:50PM JST

You can't just go and edit, you have to provide a verifiable and proven source.

I have to laugh at that statement. You can link to an article on how to bake hash brownies in a nuclear physics article and that's "verifiable" enough for the computers and most editors. And hell, greenpeace and sea shepherd are practically only quoted using their own sources, how's that a "proven" source?

I work in a public school system. Because out internet access is received through a single firewall, Wiki sees the entire school system as a single source. Kids at the high school doing malicious edits resulted in the school division's "outside" IP address being placed on a "perma-ban" even if you log in using your own account as an editor. There have been many instances where I have wanted to edit an inaccuracy or typo (or even add a comment in the discussion area for an entry) but have been unable to do so because of those students. I don't try anymore and the fact that Wiki is losing editors doesn't surprise me in the least.

Wikipedia has lots of problems, especially on controversial topics like the Middle East.

Check this article by the NY TIMES: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/opinion/06iht-edbeam.1.12610693.html?_r=1&

And this interview with the founder by Al Jazeera regarding the status of Jerusalem as described on Wikipedia--in a manner that contradicts the official stance of the international community vis-a-vis the UN: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-12-06/In_the_news

And here is a piece that discusses Apple in relation to the issue: http://www.thejewishweek.com/blogs/jewish-techs/apples-jerusalem-problem

It is still the best online encyclopedia on Internet .

Yeah, I don't think there's any question about that, but believe me, there are serious problems.

For example, they've got volunteer administrators called "sysops" and "bureaucrats" many of whom are in their 20s and early 30s and appear to be on a cyberspace power trip in performing oversight on that site. It doesn't make for a conducive atmosphere when you are dealing with content that is way over their heads and relates to controversial topics.