I used to think of the history of the English Wikipedia as three phases of equal length, the era of exponential growth that ended in 2007 (the year I started editing). The era of gentle decline (formerly known as the death spiral) that ended in the late 2014 nadir. And the current era (formerly known as the 2015 rally or the 2015 blip). But as this era is now almost ten years in length and editing is still mostly between the extremes of 2007 and 2014, it is time to stop pretending they are equally sized phases.
I've just updated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Time_Between_Edits to log the English Wikipedia's 1250 millionth edit. Of those edits 12.5% were in the first phase, 37.5% in the second phase and 50% the third. So for every edit in the English Wikipedia's exponential growth era, there have been 7 edits since. Of course this is a crude and simplistic metric that ignores the shift of thanking to the thanks button, the shift of much antivandalism work to the edit filters and the shift of the intrawiki links to wikidata, all of which contributed to the apparent decline of editing between 2007 and 2014. It also gives undue prominence to the all time peak in edits to the English Wikipedia, which happened in February 2024 due to a minor reorganisation of several million talkpages. As for the trends in the number of active editors and our failure to grow our community as fast as the internet grows, there are several factors in play. Yes deletionism is a problem, but twas forever thus; Quality standards have shifted, in 2007 I could make quite a few unsourced edits before anyone told me to start citing my sources, and the price of asking for sources was that editing became less attractive for those who find citation a chore; Typos and vandalism are now less likely to last long enough to be seen and fixed by readers, (these days much of my own typo fixing is in new and obscure articles that few readers will have seen); Employee surveillance software has probably lost us a lot of the good edits that used to be done at work; Probably the biggest change is that in the early years anyone with Internet access could edit Wikipedia, but unlike sites such as Quora, Wikipedia is awkward to edit on smartphones. Yes I know we have some editors who edit using smartphones, but they are exceptions, and we are largely a read only site for those countries and age groups who only access the internet via smartphones and tablets. Assuming that the Foundation won't come up with a more editor friendly mobile site, or a tablet view to complement the mobile and classic views; My hope is that either hardware manufacturers will come up with a replacement for the Smartphone that better supports editing sites such as Wikipedia, or that when the teenagers who grew up with Smartphones retire enough of them will become Wikipedians to keep the project going. TLDR I no longer fear for the survival of the project, but I do feel sad about the limited perspectives and collective bias of a site that is overly reliant on PC users in the first world. Apologies to those outside the anglosphere as some experiences there will be different. WSC > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Trend of number of active editor (The Cunctator) > 2. Re: Trend of number of active editor (Yaroslav Blanter) > 3. Re: Trend of number of active editor ([email protected]) > 4. Re: Trend of number of active editor (Neurodivergent Netizen) > 5. Invitation to Participate in Wiki Loves Ramadan Community Engagement > Survey > (Md. Zillur Rahman) > 6. Re: Invitation to Participate in Wiki Loves Ramadan Community > Engagement Survey > (Aafi) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2024 10:22:50 -0400 > From: The Cunctator <[email protected]> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Trend of number of active editor > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > < > cacoqvvtmpyfha1-zg0y4a_1f0+ati2qre0frak_dunbghom...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="0000000000006eff400623bb8626" > > This doesn't make sense - there are more humans on the planet, more people > online, than ever before. The only reason that editorship has declined into > stagnation is because of how unpleasant editing Wikipedia is compared to > how it could be. > > On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 2:05 PM Todd Allen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think it's even more simple than that. > > > > There are a limited number of people who would say "You know what I'd > > really like to do in my free time? I want to work on an encyclopedia." > > That's just not something that would be, or ever will be, appealing to > > everyone. > > > > And by now, well, the vast majority of them have at least heard of > > Wikipedia. Maybe some haven't tried it and caught "the bug", but a lot of > > people would try it out and say "Nah, this isn't my thing." > > > > Todd > > > > On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 11:38 AM Neurodivergent Netizen < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I think the reasons for less active editors is primarily because a large > >>> part of common knowledge is already now created and being held in > >>> Wikipedia, unlike at the start and first few years of it's existence. > >>> > >> > >> No, I think the problem is the impenetrable thicket of jargon and > >> bureaucracy and the bias for deletionism. > >> > >> > >> Can’t it be both? > >> > >> Because the more general areas of knowledge is covered, we’re less > >> inclined to be understandable towards newer editors and more inclined to > >> delete. > >> > >> The problem I think we have now is trying to attract subject matter > >> experts, possibly along with their students/proteges, who can contribute > >> reliable sources to Wikipedia. > >> > >> From, > >> I dream of horses > >> She/her > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Oct 4, 2024, at 9:57 AM, The Cunctator <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> No, I think the problem is the impenetrable thicket of jargon and > >> bureaucracy and the bias for deletionism. > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2024, 10:22 AM Thad Guidry <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I think the reasons for less active editors is primarily because a > large > >>> part of common knowledge is already now created and being held in > >>> Wikipedia, unlike at the start and first few years of it's existence. > >>> > >>> I think generally that as any knowledge base grows, such as Wikimedia, > >>> that edits tend to be fewer as general knowledge articles are set in > place, > >>> and thus remains creating only articles that cover the long tail of > >>> remaining knowledge. Hence, we are in a position in many of the larger > >>> language Wikipedia's having less of a need for general article > authorship, > >>> and instead a need for creating articles that cover the long tails of > >>> knowledge with domain experts. > >>> > >>> -Thad > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> *From:* Anders Wennersten <[email protected]> > >>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 3, 2024 8:52 PM > >>> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List <[email protected]> > >>> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Trend of number of active editor > >>> > >>> We have often discussed the trend of fewer active editors, and some of > >>> us have just discussed this at nowp and swwp and one of my fellow > >>> wikiedian has made a very interesting comparison graph where the > numbers > >>> are normalized according to number of speakers, > https://puu.sh/Kg6xQ.png > >>> > >>> As can be seen av very positive trend on frwp and plwp and reassuring > >>> one on enwp. Do we others have important lessons to be learnt from pl > >>> and frwp? > >>> > >>> Anders > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], > guidelines > >>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > >>> Public archives at > >>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/Y6WFUJNFNN63QGUDXVJKDK4EMU2GFUDQ/ > >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], > guidelines > >>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > >>> Public archives at > >>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/MTN6RCBQKX2QF5MMSCSTTECE4BG4MSVB/ > >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines > >> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > >> Public archives at > >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/2FISWVQY326DTAO45RCZV5C6BCA5Z7PD/ > >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines > >> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > >> Public archives at > >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/MI467VD2FRSN2YOBXN3P2MGRLAEWE5ZO/ > >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines > > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > Public archives at > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/VPT3V3XUJCF73YGRPSTHLWR24VQOH2DV/ > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > -------------- next part -------------- > A message part incompatible with plain text digests has been removed ... > Name: not available > Type: text/html > Size: 12365 bytes > Desc: not available > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2024 17:24:50 +0200 > From: Yaroslav Blanter <[email protected]> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Trend of number of active editor > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > <CAM-kgDNnrX9W8BNcyb-aeC_KjL= > [email protected]> > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="00000000000034aa990623bc648f" > > Well, at some point we will hit the situation when a typical user can not > read an average Wikipedia article during their attention span - which will > be a totally different reason. > > Best > Yaroslav > > On Sat, Oct 5, 2024 at 4:23 PM The Cunctator <[email protected]> wrote: > > > This doesn't make sense - there are more humans on the planet, more > people > > online, than ever before. The only reason that editorship has declined > into > > stagnation is because of how unpleasant editing Wikipedia is compared to > > how it could be. > > > > On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 2:05 PM Todd Allen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I think it's even more simple than that. > >> > >> There are a limited number of people who would say "You know what I'd > >> really like to do in my free time? I want to work on an encyclopedia." > >> That's just not something that would be, or ever will be, appealing to > >> everyone. > >> > >> And by now, well, the vast majority of them have at least heard of > >> Wikipedia. Maybe some haven't tried it and caught "the bug", but a lot > of > >> people would try it out and say "Nah, this isn't my thing." > >> > >> Todd > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 11:38 AM Neurodivergent Netizen < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> I think the reasons for less active editors is primarily because a > large > >>>> part of common knowledge is already now created and being held in > >>>> Wikipedia, unlike at the start and first few years of it's existence. > >>>> > >>> > >>> No, I think the problem is the impenetrable thicket of jargon and > >>> bureaucracy and the bias for deletionism. > >>> > >>> > >>> Can’t it be both? > >>> > >>> Because the more general areas of knowledge is covered, we’re less > >>> inclined to be understandable towards newer editors and more inclined > to > >>> delete. > >>> > >>> The problem I think we have now is trying to attract subject matter > >>> experts, possibly along with their students/proteges, who can > contribute > >>> reliable sources to Wikipedia. > >>> > >>> From, > >>> I dream of horses > >>> She/her > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Oct 4, 2024, at 9:57 AM, The Cunctator <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> No, I think the problem is the impenetrable thicket of jargon and > >>> bureaucracy and the bias for deletionism. > >>> > >>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2024, 10:22 AM Thad Guidry <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I think the reasons for less active editors is primarily because a > >>>> large part of common knowledge is already now created and being held > in > >>>> Wikipedia, unlike at the start and first few years of it's existence. > >>>> > >>>> I think generally that as any knowledge base grows, such as Wikimedia, > >>>> that edits tend to be fewer as general knowledge articles are set in > place, > >>>> and thus remains creating only articles that cover the long tail of > >>>> remaining knowledge. Hence, we are in a position in many of the > larger > >>>> language Wikipedia's having less of a need for general article > authorship, > >>>> and instead a need for creating articles that cover the long tails of > >>>> knowledge with domain experts. > >>>> > >>>> -Thad > >>>> ------------------------------ > >>>> *From:* Anders Wennersten <[email protected]> > >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 3, 2024 8:52 PM > >>>> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List <[email protected]> > >>>> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Trend of number of active editor > >>>> > >>>> We have often discussed the trend of fewer active editors, and some of > >>>> us have just discussed this at nowp and swwp and one of my fellow > >>>> wikiedian has made a very interesting comparison graph where the > >>>> numbers > >>>> are normalized according to number of speakers, > >>>> https://puu.sh/Kg6xQ.png > >>>> > >>>> As can be seen av very positive trend on frwp and plwp and reassuring > >>>> one on enwp. Do we others have important lessons to be learnt from pl > >>>> and frwp? > >>>> > >>>> Anders > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], > >>>> guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > >>>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > >>>> Public archives at > >>>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/Y6WFUJNFNN63QGUDXVJKDK4EMU2GFUDQ/ > >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], > >>>> guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > >>>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > >>>> Public archives at > >>>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/MTN6RCBQKX2QF5MMSCSTTECE4BG4MSVB/ > >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], > guidelines > >>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > >>> Public archives at > >>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/2FISWVQY326DTAO45RCZV5C6BCA5Z7PD/ > >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], > guidelines > >>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > >>> Public archives at > >>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/MI467VD2FRSN2YOBXN3P2MGRLAEWE5ZO/ > >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines > >> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > >> Public archives at > >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/VPT3V3XUJCF73YGRPSTHLWR24VQOH2DV/ > >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines > > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > Public archives at > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/GMLEPE6XOD7N752EKWBLY2DYFLF6R25O/ > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > -------------- next part -------------- > A message part incompatible with plain text digests has been removed ... > Name: not available > Type: text/html > Size: 13976 bytes > Desc: not available > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2024 10:16:19 +0000 > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Trend of number of active editor > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <AM8P193MB1172423A3BD92EDCD7970C4CF4732@AM8P193MB1172. > EURP193.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_AM8P193MB117242 > 3A3BD92EDCD7970C4CF4732AM8P193MB1172EURP_" > > Perhaps what we need is also to add new Key Performance Indicators (Kpis). > Performance on Wikipedia is mainly evaluated by these indicators : number > of active editors, number of articles created. > On the other hand, the rights of the contributors inside of the community > (for being able to vote, etc...) are unequal and progressive and based on > these three factors : seniority, industriousness, recent activity. > These kpis are all based on quantitative factors. > But there is no evaluation of the quality of the contributions. > > But how establishing content based criterias and how measuring them ? > > One thing that can be assessed is if a given modified or added accurate > information is also correctly added or changed in all the other concerned > articles to guarantee a coherence in Wikipedia. > Another one could be the evaluation of the impact of addition of new > contents on Wikipedia on the display of the results of research tools like > Google. > I made some quick and informal tests. I made screenshots of the results of > a given research before and after adding some new names or sources in a > given article. > It seems that some additions are taken quickly in account in the results > of Google, ranking differently Wikipedia where there was previously no such > content in the article (I speak from small additions in an existing > article, not the creation of a new article). > And also, particularly, specific new sources used to back these additions > that were before very hard to find for the same topic on the same research > tool (it takes me sometimes hours and days to get Wikipedia compatible good > sources about specific topics...) surface now on the research results. > Probably they are still specific researches about the impact on Internet of > addition of new Wikipedia content (micro-edition), but working on defining > content Kpis seems crucial to attract new micro editors. Yes, adding a good > information and a good source on Wikipedia, even if it's only a single one, > has a direct and significative impact on the quality of the information > displayed on Internet. We have to prove it and value it. > > I'm convinced that there will never be so many intensive life-time editors > in the future, but this can still be compensated by a lot of quality > micro-editors, also including more women, who don't want to devote all > their time to Wikipedia only, but are able to do quality editing with a > significant impact on the information provided on Internet. > > So quality must be added in our Kpis. > > We can do a lot for getting more "micro-editors", including more creative > tools and innnovative training materials (I'll present some objects at the > next French Wikiconference). > > I'm also sure that a specific Wikipedia app dedicated to a good editing > palette would ease a lot the editing on Mobile. > > > Waltercolor > > ________________________________ > De : Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <[email protected]> > Envoyé : vendredi 4 octobre 2024 21:01 > À : Wikimedia Mailing List <[email protected]> > Objet : [Wikimedia-l] Re: Trend of number of active editor > > This is a really interesting discussion, and most of the reasons explained > here are plausible. From my experience with students, the idea we of > Internet we had 20 years ago it's gone. The idea of "do it yourself" (learn > how to use the computers, make your own webs/blogs, build your own castle) > is something that doesn't fit in their current world. Sometimes I talk > about Matrix (the film) with students trying to explain them what Internet > was when we started with Wikipedia. They just don't get it. > > Instead, the world is like in Matrix Resurrections: there are big > companies, things are done and provided by someone else, there's no scape > from that. They fully understand that Google/FB/whoever is using them and > their private data to make money, but the only alternative is to live in a > cave. There's no way to just build your own app, to make something > alternative. Everything is done, the world is given, and if there's an > error or gap in Wikipedia, someone should come and solve that, because they > don't think they could be editing it (if not for vandalizing). > > That's what "future audiences" are, and that's what we are losing. > However, it may be true that active editors are declining on English > Wikipedia, because we are aging and because we are losing people in the > way, but it is interesting that the same is not happening in other > languages. There are new language projects born and some are growing. So, > the overall number of editors may be going down, young audiences might be > not interested or with a mindset that makes them think that there's nothing > that can be done... but there may be other communities and projects > blooming. Researching that could be a really interesting thing. > > Have a good weekend > > Galder > ________________________________ > From: Peter Southwood <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, October 4, 2024 8:22 PM > To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' <[email protected]> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Trend of number of active editor > > > All of the above/below > > Cheers, Peter > > > > From: Todd Allen [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 04 October 2024 20:04 > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Trend of number of active editor > > > > I think it's even more simple than that. > > > > There are a limited number of people who would say "You know what I'd > really like to do in my free time? I want to work on an encyclopedia." > That's just not something that would be, or ever will be, appealing to > everyone. > > > > And by now, well, the vast majority of them have at least heard of > Wikipedia. Maybe some haven't tried it and caught "the bug", but a lot of > people would try it out and say "Nah, this isn't my thing." > > > > Todd > > > > On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 11:38 AM Neurodivergent Netizen < > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > I think the reasons for less active editors is primarily because a large > part of common knowledge is already now created and being held in > Wikipedia, unlike at the start and first few years of it's existence. > > > > No, I think the problem is the impenetrable thicket of jargon and > bureaucracy and the bias for deletionism. > > > > Can’t it be both? > > > > Because the more general areas of knowledge is covered, we’re less > inclined to be understandable towards newer editors and more inclined to > delete. > > > > The problem I think we have now is trying to attract subject matter > experts, possibly along with their students/proteges, who can contribute > reliable sources to Wikipedia. > > > > From, > > I dream of horses > > She/her > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 4, 2024, at 9:57 AM, The Cunctator <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>> wrote: > > > > No, I think the problem is the impenetrable thicket of jargon and > bureaucracy and the bias for deletionism. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 1227, Issue 1 > ******************************************** >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/4T6B3YCXTUQCCUDG55Y6HDEBTWHEYKZ7/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
