What I absolutely *love* in this piece is that it's by our own GLAM-Wiki podcast host Andrew Lih and it's in the New York f***ing Times! Yay!
Plus I totally agree with his lead point, which holds for all languages: "One of the biggest threats it faces is the rise of smartphones as the dominant personal computing device." If I had to pick the one thing that would stop me editing Wikipedia projects, then yes, this *is* that thing. Though I truly love Wikidata and I do feel strongly about the Gendergap, I agree with him and feel that the biggest threat to the Wikiverse is the demise of the desktop. On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected] > wrote: > Hoi, > What I absolutely hate in this piece is something that has been obvious for > so long: "... , or to groups devoted to non-English languages?". It is the > lack of attention and funding that has discriminated against other > languages. The attitude of "when it works for the big Wikipedias, it will > work for the small Wikipedias" is manifestly wrong and there are plenty > examples to prove the point. > > In the app where information is to be had from Wikidata they use for > instance descriptions. There are several problems with them. > > - They do not translate > - They do not get updated > - They distract people from adding statements that would improve > automated descriptions. > > There is no single argument why we should not use automated descriptions > and there are plenty why we should. To start we support over 280 languages > and most of them are best served with automated descriptions. > > This is only one example where positive discrimination for English is > actually holding us back. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 21 June 2015 at 20:47, MZMcBride <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi. > > > > This op-ed by Andrew Lih appeared in today's New York Times. I'm sending > > it here in case anyone is interested in reading or discussing it. I > > enjoyed the piece; congrats to Mr. Lih on getting this published! > > > > MZMcBride > > > > ---- > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/can-wikipedia-survive.html > > > > Can Wikipedia Survive? > > By Andrew Lih > > June 20, 2015 > > > > WASHINGTON — WIKIPEDIA has come a long way since it started in 2001. With > > around 70,000 volunteers editing in over 100 languages, it is by far the > > world’s most popular reference site. Its future is also uncertain. > > > > One of the biggest threats it faces is the rise of smartphones as the > > dominant personal computing device. A recent Pew Research Center report > > found that 39 of the top 50 news sites received more traffic from mobile > > devices than from desktop and laptop computers, sales of which have > > declined for years. > > > > This is a challenge for Wikipedia, which has always depended on > > contributors hunched over keyboards searching references, discussing > > changes and writing articles using a special markup code. Even before > > smartphones were widespread, studies consistently showed that these are > > daunting tasks for newcomers. “Not even our youngest and most > > computer-savvy participants accomplished these tasks with ease,” a 2009 > > user test concluded. The difficulty of bringing on new volunteers has > > resulted in seven straight years of declining editor participation. > > > > In 2005, during Wikipedia’s peak years, there were months when more than > > 60 editors were made administrator — a position with special privileges > in > > editing the English-language edition. For the past year, it has sometimes > > struggled to promote even one per month. > > > > The pool of potential Wikipedia editors could dry up as the number of > > mobile users keeps growing; it’s simply too hard to manipulate complex > > code on a tiny screen. > > > > The nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation, which oversees Wikipedia’s operations > > but is not directly involved in content, is investigating solutions. Some > > ideas include touch-screen tools that would let Wikipedia editors sift > > through information and share content from their phones. > > > > What has not suffered is fund-raising. The foundation, based in San > > Francisco, has a budget of roughly $60 million. How to fairly distribute > > resources has long been a topic of debate. How much should go to regional > > chapters and affiliates, or to groups devoted to non-English languages? > > How much should stay in the foundation to develop software, create mobile > > apps and maintain infrastructure? > > > > These tensions run through the community. Last year the foundation took > > the unprecedented step of forcing the installation of new software on the > > German-language Wikipedia. The German editors had shown their independent > > streak by resisting an earlier update to the site’s user interface. > > Against the wishes of veteran editors, the foundation installed a new way > > to view multimedia content and then set up an Orwellian-sounding > > “superprotect” feature to block obstinate administrators from changing it > > back. > > > > The latest clash had repercussions in the election this year for seats to > > the Wikimedia Foundation’s board of trustees — the most influential > > positions that volunteers can hold. The election — a record 5,000 voters > > turned out, nearly three times the number from the previous election — > was > > a rebuke to the status quo; all three incumbents up for re-election were > > defeated, replaced by critics of the superprotect measures. Two other > > members will leave the 10-member board at the end of this year. > Meanwhile, > > the foundation’s new executive director, Lila Tretikov, has been hiring > > developers from the world of open-source technology, and their lack of > > experience with Wikipedia content has concerned some veterans. > > > > Could the pressure from mobile, and the internal tensions, tear Wikipedia > > apart? A world without it seems unimaginable, but consider the fate of > > other online communities. Founded in 1985, at the dawn of the Internet, > > the Well, the self-proclaimed “birthplace of the online community > > movement,” hosted an influential cast of dot-com luminaries on its > > electronic bulletin board discussion forums. By 1995, it was in steep > > decline, and today it is a shell of its former self. Blogging, celebrated > > a decade ago as pioneering an exciting new form of personal writing, has > > decreased significantly in the social-media age. > > > > These are existential challenges, but they can still be addressed. There > > is no other significant alternative to Wikipedia, and good will toward > the > > project — a remarkable feat of altruism — could hardly be higher. If the > > foundation needed more donations, it could surely raise them. > > > > The real challenges for Wikipedia are to resolve the governance disputes > — > > the tensions among foundation employees, longtime editors trying to > > protect their prerogatives, and new volunteers trying to break in — and > to > > design a mobile-oriented editing environment. One board member, María > > Sefidari, warned that “some communities have become so change-resistant > > and innovation-averse” that they risk staying “stuck in 2006 while the > > rest of the Internet is thinking about 2020 and the next three billion > > users.” > > > > For the last few years, the Smithsonian Institution, the National > Archives > > and other world-class institutions, libraries and museums have > > collaborated with Wikipedia’s volunteers to improve accuracy, quality of > > references and depth of multimedia on article pages. This movement dates > > from 2010, when the British Museum saw that Wikipedia’s visitor traffic > to > > articles about its artifacts was five times greater than that of the > > museum’s own website. Grasping the power of Wikipedia to amplify its > > reach, the museum invited a Wikipedia editor to work with its curatorial > > staff. Since then, similar parternships have been set up with groups like > > the Cochrane Collaboration, a nonprofit organization that focuses on > > evidence-based health care, and the Centers for Disease Control and > > Prevention. > > > > These are vital opportunities for Wikipedia to tap external expertise and > > enlarge its base of editors. It is also the most promising way to solve > > the considerable and often-noted gender gap among Wikipedia editors; in > > 2011, less than 15 percent were women. > > > > The worst scenario is an end to Wikipedia, not with a bang but with a > > whimper: a long, slow decline in participation, accuracy and usefulness > > that is not quite dramatic enough to jolt the community into making > > meaningful reforms. > > > > No effort in history has gotten so much information at so little cost > into > > the hands of so many — a feat made all the more remarkable by the absence > > of profit and owners. In an age of Internet giants, this most selfless of > > websites is worth saving. > > > > --- > > > > Andrew Lih is an associate professor of journalism at American University > > and the author of “The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies > > Created the World’s Greatest Encyclopedia.” > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
