This is four years ago, anyone knows if that happened?

Edited to add: One thing that has been annoying me a little, is when articles, regardless of their quality, are deleted because they lack notoriety. If these deletes adhere to the conclusions in this article (written by an outsider, then deleted by an insider, rather than both written and deleted by insiders), this strikes me as an example of a policy that should be changed in face of this evidence, since capturing the knowledge of these drive-by contributors seems more important than "saving space".

It's a basic psychology 101 concept, but one thats easily missed: don't equate your operationalized variables with the phenomena you are trying to measure.

Newly-added bytes may be true or false. They may be useful or not useful even if true --- readers do not want every byte about a given topic, they want a few tens of thousands of the most useful ones. (This is entirely orthogonal to the inclusionist-deletionist debate about what topics should be included. Some bytes may be useless in the context of a main topical article about Alan Alda himself, but they would be very relevant to a subtopical article about Alan Alda's dental health).

For a popular topic, you'll have dozens of people adding bytes of varying quality. Insiders subtract the false or useless bytes (an action easily captured in statistics and then maligned on the internet by pundits), but also look at the true and useful bytes, fact-check them, and then leave them in place. This contribution --- curation --- is not captured in any statistics, but it is an important part of the mechanism by which you can have 1 expert and two enthusiastic amateurs stop by every few weeks on their lunch break to expand an article with no centralised notice or approval, without having have the place turned into a mess by the 97 vandals and well-meaning incompetents who came by in the meantime.

The real problem Wikipedia faces is in the long tail of topics, where there is only one person adding the bytes, and that person is either grinding an axe, self-promoting, or afflicted with incurable "nerdview". The well-meaning, harried, underinformed Wikipedia insiders inevitably screw up when they try to distinguish useless vs. useful bytes on these topics, but I wouldn't call the outsiders who added the bytes in the first place "experts". Unfortunately both sides' conduct may be scaring away the people who are actual experts on those long-tail topics ...

Plenty of articles I come across have "drive by additions" of some length that are unreadable, repetitive and disturbingly worded. There are contributors whose sole purpose is to go round and copyedit that content, which they may do in a number of edits... but change (by comparison) very few words. It can still take hours of effort.

A Wiki article is the sum of all those edits.

I don't know if greater access to its priestly class would mean a better or worse site, honestly. I'm sure there are thousands of people who are experts in their fields and could improve the content of the site greatly - but I can imagine that opening the floodgates and working to democratize authorship and editorship could also drag it further into the gutter.

http://www.christopherwoodall.com/blog/?x=entry:entry101221-...

It seems like ever since I started working for myself, I don't have time for hobbies at all - everything I do has to go through a prism of how will this affect my bottom line...

Correct. But not just long-tail topics, but any topic that can only be properly treated by deep immersion in the subject, and especially any topic that is controversial. A lot of point-of-view pushers on Wikipedia do a lot of their POV-pushing by "framing," just making sure that some wikilinks to articles they like persist, while others are deleted, or that navigation templates or article categories play up the articles that best represent their point of view. And that's before we even get to the issue of deleting reliable sources.

Now, researching & writing articles on moderately-important-to-obscure historical subjects is something I do as an odd form of relaxation. I occasionally edit articles in my actual area of expertise, but that feels more like "work". Collecting a few sources to write a decent first cut at an article on a historical figure or event feels like recreation. Plus, I learn some things.

There'a also very little controversy and conflict compared to writing about hot topics and recent events, so not much wikidrama. People will argue over all sorts of things, but strangely enough I've never had an edit war over an article like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Gradnauer or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Pasquale_Ricci. =]

The article's point resonated with me, because it seems that the whole process is based on the assumption that you're a no-lifer who spends all day patrolling Wikipedia.

They advertised themselves as the "open source encyclopedia", but they have not adopted any other concepts from the software development world, such as "quality assurance" and "stable releases".

About two years ago I went through about a six month period where I spent pretty much every day in a revert war with various people who definitely didn't know anything about the field/area I was trying to provide some information on.

I happen to have a fair amount of expertise and experience in a certain area (Music Trackers) and at the time thought I would lend a hand to flesh out the still woefully inadequate content to that part of Wikipedia and started or fleshed out dozens of pages of content. I probably spent north of 100 hours on content creation even going so far as to setup emulated environments in other OSs so I could get screen captures of some of the software. I spent dozens more cleaning up missing or outright incorrect information.

Every time I did something, the change was reverted. To this day, not a single edit I did ever stayed on Wikipedia longer than a week. Eventually, tired of endless arguing with editors who just wholesale reverted entire sections of material rather than edit or augment what I put in there, I just gave up.

Particularly egregious were the endless arguments over notoriety of this or that. Responses to the editors demonstrating conformance to Wikipedia's notoriety guidelines were met with silence and further reverts. One in particular, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sega, actually has a page now anyways -- but it's not mine. Fascinatingly, I think that two of the editors causing most of the problems didn't even know what the demoscene was! In a bizarre argument from one of the editors, I was called unqualified to write about the demoscene since I myself was a 'scener!

I think I'd still be contributing if the editors had...I don't know..."edited", instead of reverted. I would have happily participated in ensuring things like objectivity and article organization were well followed, but wholesale deleting information? Nah, I'm done with participating in Wikipedia as a contributor.

http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2008/06/15/Deletionis...

I'm very turned off by the amount of poorly sourced point-of-view pushing that goes on on Wikipedia. I've tried to light a candle in the darkness by compiling source lists in my user space (which I link to from article talk pages), and by mostly adding current reliable sources to articles, but even at that a lot of my edits get reverted by POV-pushers (or their sock puppets or meat puppets) on ideological grounds. This continues to happen even after one group of articles I work on went through an Arbitration Committee case in August of this year. The sanctioned editors learned how to cheat on their sanctions, and the conscientious editors are still badly outnumbered (at least as to visible accounts actively editing the articles at any one time). The administrators are beleaguered, and aren't using their mops actively to clean up the mess.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/c1/wellkept_gardens_die_by_pacifism/

I have severe doubts about the statement made by Jimbo Wales quoted in the submitted link here: "'I’m not a wiki person who happened to go into encyclopedias,' Wales told the crowd at Oxford. 'I’m an encyclopedia person who happened to use a wiki.'" While I give many of the high-edit-count old hands a lot of credit for trying to maintain encyclopedic standards on Wikipedia, I can't agree that their sound editorial judgment characterizes most of Wikipedia's editorial culture. On any topic that is the least bit controversial, the culture is all about ideological edit-warring, and many active wikipedians seem to be quite proud of their lack of acquaintance with libraries or the other resources used by genuine scholars. There doesn't seem to be anyone at the top of the leadership of Wikipedia backing up the wikipedians who are doing the best work for the project and adding the most reliably sourced content.

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan/Movement_P...

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan/Movement_P...

If pg has said that someone could do to Wikipedia what Wikipedia did to Britannica (where and when did pg say that?), I'd like to know how to join that effort. What have any of you heard about efforts to bring about a friendly competitor to Wikipedia? The best way to help Wikipedia might be to build a point of comparison that does better work, just as East Germany was best helped by the continually visible example of West Germany until the Stasi couldn't make the East Germans afraid anymore.