Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Contributors Leaving Wikipedia In Record Numbers

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the three-phases-of-web-sites dept.

The Internet 632

Hugh Pickens writes "CNET reports that the volunteers who create Wikipedia's pages, check facts and adapt the site are abandoning Wikipedia in unprecedented numbers, with tens of thousands of editors going 'dead' — no longer actively contributing and updating the site — a trend many experts believe could threaten Wikipedia's future. In the first three months of 2009, the English-language version of Wikipedia suffered a net loss of 49,000 contributors, compared with a loss of about 4,900 during the same period in 2008. 'If you don't have enough people to take care of the project it could vanish quickly,' says Felipe Ortega at the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in Madrid, who created a computer system to analyze the editing history of more than three million active Wikipedia contributors in ten different languages. 'We're not in that situation yet. But eventually, if the negative trends follow, we could be in that situation.' Contributors are becoming disenchanted with the process of adding to the site, which is becoming increasingly difficult says Andrew Dalby, author of The World and Wikipedia: How We are Editing Reality and a regular editor of the site. 'There is an increase of bureaucracy and rules. Wikipedia grew because of the lack of rules. That has been forgotten. The rules are regarded as irritating and useless by many contributors.' Arguments over various articles have also taken their toll. 'Many people are getting burnt out when they have to debate about the contents of certain articles again and again,' adds Ortega."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

New wiki user (5, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227330)

No need to keep posting slashdot stories on Wikipedia's impending demise. Just follow this new user page [] on wikipedia.

Re:New wiki user (1)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227376)

Well, you have a cite on Wiki. Can't argue with the facts.

A suggestion (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30227580)

One thing that might benefit the editing process is a paragraph-lockdown feature. Controversial articles tend to be edited in a back-and-forth way until arbitrators arrive and force a cooperative consensus to be reached. They might also lock the whole page, but such locks are always temporary and as soon as they are lifted, some new users come along, who didn't participate in the consensus, and mess it all up. The the edit war begins again. A paragraph lockdown would ensure that paragraphs reached via consensus would stay unaffected by new users, while still allowing the overall page to have new stuff added. The associated discussion page would be required to be used, before changes were allowed to affect a locked paragraph.

Re:A suggestion (1)

longhairedgnome (610579) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227772)

All hail the mighty paragraph.

Re:A suggestion (1, Flamebait)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227850)

Actually the one thing that would really benefit wikipedia is a feature allowing multiple versions of the same page/subject. Allow total free editing, then have a "version responsable" that comprises his version of the page, accepting or denying edits as he sees fit.

A sort of cross between the current wikipedia and google's knol.

Don't like the current dictator ? Become one yourself ! One additional viewpoint in wikipedia ! Hurray !

(of course we all know the "progressive" owner of wikipedia is not about to allow multiple viewpoints, any more than such are allowed in any other "progressive" (ie. socialist) party)

What would really help them: (1, Troll)

2.7182 (819680) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227860)

Allow ads!

Re:New wiki user (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227816)

Can't argue with the facts.

Allow me to introduce to this most ancient of human inventions : politics. From Clinton to the Iraqi information minister, across even the digital divide, people proving every day you can, in fact, argue with facts.

You can even argue with lies.

Wikipedia:Statistics (5, Insightful)

KlaymenDK (713149) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227624)

Har har har. How very funny.

Actually, the Wikipedia:Statistics [] page gets you all the stats there's to be had.

Also, Wikimedia:Statistics [] is showing a steady influx of New Wikipedians [] and Active Wikipedians [] , albeit not quite as many as previously.

Hmm, I wonder if this is more a publicity stunt in relation with their current funds drive?

At least, "Wikipedia shows signs of stalling as number of volunteers falls sharply" should probably have been "Wikipedia shows signs of maturity as number of new volunteers falls slighly".

Re:Wikipedia:Statistics (0, Troll)

owlnation (858981) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227910)

Hmm, I wonder if this is more a publicity stunt in relation with their current funds drive?

Yes, that's definitely very insightful. For the past few years, in November and December, wikipedia does its annual scrounging for more money -- and oddly there's been a rash of wikipedia-related articles at the same time. Sometimes pro, sometimes negative. But bad publicity is still publicity and still part of the marketing machine.

Hmmm... no wikipedia articles for weeks, if not months, and as soon as the begging cap comes out, out come the articles. Yep, Jimmy Wales may be many things, but sure he knows how to make a buck.

FRIST JEW! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30227344)

thats what happen when you let jews and scientologist control your shit.. dont forget pedophile admins!

Re:FRIST JEW! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30227422)

how is this a troll? it's the fucking truth FACE IT NERD!

You dumbass! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30227554)

If the Jews were running it, it would be making money.

If the Scientologists were running it, Jesus would be listed as a space alien.


It's finished, dummies (3, Interesting)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227360)

How much more can we write about Louis Pasteur or the Treaty of Worms or Heilongjiang? Wikipedia has had a ton of stuff poured into it and doesn't really need new contributors. Not surprising they're trying to drive contributors off. One thing I've learned in life, when people are being dicks they're doing it for a reason that benefits them.

Re:It's finished, dummies (5, Insightful)

KlaymenDK (713149) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227394)

Maybe not finished, but certainly quite aways toward it.

“If you don’t have enough people to take care of the project it could vanish quickly"
That's an odd thing to say. For a game such as an MMO, it would be detrimental to have all the players leave; but a reference is a different kind of game: even with no new contributions and no more editing, there is still a vast mass of articles on historical (history up until today, at least) subjects, and they're not likely to disappear just because the contributors do.

Re:It's finished, dummies (4, Insightful)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227764)

The paradox is that as the number of useful contributors leave, the number of vandals is sure to only increase. If there are no provisions for better restricting the damage caused by vandals, the nature of the project as a reliable repository of information could in fact vanish.

Re:It's finished, dummies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30227870)

Hmm - horse, barn door... I've got nothin'.

Re:It's finished, dummies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30227814)

even with no new contributions and no more editing, there is still a vast mass of articles on historical (history up until today, at least) subjects, and they're not likely to disappear just because the contributors do.

Vandas will keep on editing and if there is not enough editors to clean up their mess then the content will deteriorate with time.

Re:It's finished, dummies (3, Interesting)

Titoxd (1116095) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227402)

That's pretty close to reality. There's not much to do anymore, at least for me. I still keep up with my watchlist, and visit frequently to remain aware of what is going on, but my time is spent doing other useful things. And yeah, internal politics get boring after a while...

Re:It's finished, dummies (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227516)

or Heilongjiang

I think a lot more could be written about the Northeastern Chinese province of Heilongjiang. It's got a ridiculously small Wikipedia page [] (even in simplified Chinese [] ) yet is home to 38 million people and is about the area of Texas [] . And after all that this province has a vastly smaller page than Texas (especially if you look at Texas as a portal page). That's a higher population and area than most US states. If those people spoke English and had more access to internet, I'm sure this page could harbor a lot more encyclopedic information.

What I'm trying to say is: your articles are finished. If the world revolved around you, Wikipedia would be complete. But not to the billions of other people in the world. So keep your claims of "it's finished, dummies" to yourself.

Re:It's finished, dummies (3, Insightful)

Tom (822) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227520)

One thing I've learned in life, when people are being dicks they're doing it for a reason that benefits them.

The keyword being them - not necessarily the project.

There are many discussions in dozens of blogs about what the benefit for the Wikipedia "inner circle" is. Most of it isn't very friendly. Much of it sounds right nevertheless.

Re:It's finished, dummies (1)

Verdatum (1257828) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227526)

While I agree that the project doesn't really need new contributors, I still haven't come across this "trying to drive contributors off" thing I keep hearing about. I had no problems getting into Wikipedia, and I've had no problems helping others contribute to it. Yes, like everywhere on the Internet, there are dicks and trolls (a couple of which are indeed admins), but they can be ignored or overruled.

Re:It's finished, dummies (5, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227568)

Wikipedia was supposed to end up being something akin to a compendium of all human knowledge, which in theory could never really be "full" because human knowledge always expands. The problem is, the powers that be over there decided to arbitrarily apply their "noteworthy" filter on everything, and so they've collapsed the infinite array of human knowledge down into a decidedly finite set of "relevant" human knowledge. Of course, they alone are the arbiters of what is and isn't relevant, and wield the delete hammer often. Under these circumstances, yes you'll eventually come to the end of what is "appropriate" for wikipedia.

Having said that, I don't think even with their draconian and arbitrary relevancy policies that they're anywhere near the end of everything that would fit on the site. The issue is not that they're running out of things to put up, it's that they're actively driving contributors away by subjecting them to all these hoops to jump through that didn't exist before. You have the old guard admins fighting amongst themselves, and throwing up arbitrary restrictions to make it harder and more frustrating for new editors to get involved.

Wikipedia is also much more susceptible to rot than most other sites. Without a steady stream of admins coming in and doing the grunt work of cleaning up the many thousands of articles on the site, those articles will eventually be taken over by the trolls and become useless. Eventually, enough articles will suffer this fate that no one will consider the site any kind of good resource anymore, and we will have lost something truly remarkable.

Wikipedia as it stood not too long ago was a remarkable testament to the power of collaborative editing, and represented an incredible resource. If it continues the slide it's on, it will end up being an object lesson in how political infighting and needless bureaucracy (particularly bureaucracy designed to protect personal fiefdoms) can ruin things for everyone.

Re:It's finished, dummies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30227864)

This is somewhat natural - true there is more to add, but most of the low hanging fruit has been done - Einstein, Newton, George Washington, King Louis, etc. More topics can be added, but on more obscure topics with a smaller collection of individuals who can contribute meaningfully, thus a fair number of contributors have exhausted their knowledge base and stopped actively contributing. Similarly, once pages have reached a certain point of completeness, it makes sense to make editing harder to preserve them from page rot.

By amount of text, not by quality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30227584)

But the quality of Wiki articles is close to horrible. Okay, articles regarding computers, LOTR, Star Wars and Star Trek have been very well written and thought out but if you actually have knowledge of any other subject and look at wikipedia about those, you quickly notive that the quality of articles is extremely low - whether it is about political sciences, economy, more exotic animals, etc... And that is without even going to the most controversial topics...

Wiki is OK place to look up what some word means and what's the basic concept but for anything more it is pretty useless.

Reminds Me of the Early DotCom Syndrome (2, Interesting)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227592)

The kids have a crazy idea, work hard, total chaos, but lo-and-behold Something Wonderful Is Made. Then the foosball tables get wheeled in, there's an in-house rave with free pizza and beer and cocaine every Friday night, the kids try branching out into a hundred other lines of business they have no good reason to be in, and that hockey stick revenue projection starts to look more and more like a zombie's EKG reading. Finally, the adults get called in, all the kids get thrown out except for the one or two who have been featured on the cover of Wired, and everybody hopes it's not too late to "finally get down to business."

"It was the life we choose... we fight and never lose..."

Re:It's finished, dummies (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227598)

To me,I find Wikipedia's editing method incredibly cumbersome. I don't know what the alternative is.

Meanwhile, I'm thoroughly beyond my tolerance of the site in knowing that every article is going to have a bias on some subjective issue, if it's even remotely political.

Re:It's finished, dummies (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227608)

How much more can we write about Louis Pasteur or the Treaty of Worms or Heilongjiang? Wikipedia has had a ton of stuff poured into it and doesn't really need new contributors.

OTOH - I chanced to visit the article for LHC@Home the other day, and found it to be three years out of date. And really, that was only noticeable for the extreme length it was out of date... Almost daily I find articles out of date anywhere from a couple of months, to over a year. (TV series without info on the new season, sports teams whose coverage isn't current, bands listed as 'going on tour in Summer 2008'. Etc. etc..)
That's not to mention the numerous articles I visit, when not out of date, that have confusing introduction, information duplicated in multiple places, poor organization, etc..
Then on top of that, the world of scholarship doesn't stand still - new things about historical topics are routinely discovered.
Wikipedia is far from 'finished', it's not even close.

Re:It's finished, dummies (1)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227610)

How much more can we write about Louis Pasteur or the Treaty of Worms or Heilongjiang?

Or Barack Obama or the Vojislav Seselj trial or Jerusalem. Really, nothing more to happen there.

Not surprising they're trying to drive contributors off. One thing I've learned in life, when people are being dicks they're doing it for a reason that benefits them.

So Wikipedia's higher-ups don't want any more contributors? But that must mean nothing's ever going to happen again. Hmmmm....


Re:It's finished, dummies (2, Interesting)

hemp (36945) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227642)

A lot of the stuff in wikipedia is obviously copied from other materials. I think they may have finished copying all of the easily available materials.

Re:It's finished, dummies (1)

kharchenko (303729) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227670)

What a useless stance to take! The content is clearly just a tiny sliver of the knowledge that can and should be organized and presented. There are numerous topics in science, technology, math and nature that could be made accessible by expanding wikipedia. I am not sure whether you're trying to argue that it's as comprehensive as it could possibly be, or if the depth of the subjects should be limited on purpose. The former would be surprisingly narrow minded, and the latter is downright harmful.

Re:It's finished, dummies (1)

TorKlingberg (599697) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227688)

Except Wikipedia is far from finished. Sure, the subjects the subjects the average Wikipedia writer (or Slashdotter) is likely to look up are well covered. Some subject areas were pretty much covered already in 2004. There is an article on pretty much every American town, film, band, athlete etc, but as soon as you go outside North America, Europe, Japan and Australia it gets a lot more sparse.

There is also a huge number of historical people with no articles. Whole academic subjects such as philosophy are barely covered and not very well written. Events before 2001 that aren't frequently referenced today is not nearly as well covered as recent events.

Re:It's finished, dummies (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227706)

How much more can we write about Louis Pasteur or the Treaty of Worms or Heilongjiang? Wikipedia has had a ton of stuff poured into it and doesn't really need new contributors.


Wikipedia isn't really like a normal web community or collaborative effort... It is an on-line encyclopedia. Once you've got a good, thorough article about something... You don't really need to keep revisiting it all the time. Sure, if some new bit of evidence pops up - fine, add it in. But it isn't like you need an army of contributors to keep a lot of this stuff fresh.

And even if every single contributor were to leave today, you'll still have Wikipedia. You'll still have tons of content about tons of stuff. It'd still be a useful reference.

Re:It's finished, dummies (1)

Shining Celebi (853093) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227836)

How much more can we write about Louis Pasteur or the Treaty of Worms or Heilongjiang? Wikipedia has had a ton of stuff poured into it and doesn't really need new contributors. Not surprising they're trying to drive contributors off. One thing I've learned in life, when people are being dicks they're doing it for a reason that benefits them.

There's an unimaginably vast amount of useful information that could still be added to Wikipedia, and plenty of it is low-hanging fruit. The problem is not that new contributors don't have anything to contribute. The problem is that Wikipedia has become a vas and bureaucratic sprawling network of cliques. If you don't have the right friends, you're not going to have very much success in editing any article anybody cares about, whether such edits are substantive and informational or not. There will always be some rule or guideline that will be used against you. And this "inner circle", so to speak, is not interesting in adding material. The biggest way to "contribute" on Wikipedia for the past couple of years is to delete articles and raise the standards of notability to ridiculous levels.

Nobody is arguing that there should be Wikipedia pages on your local pizza joint or your brother Joe. We're talking about a standard of notability that basically amounts to if Some Administrator X hasn't heard of it, it isn't notable. As a result, plenty of useful and relatively notable pages disappear. The natural effect of this and wikilawyering is to drive contributors away. Check out the deletion logs for various pages, discussion pages, and the like. You can see this for yourself.

Deletionists are reaping what they sow. But that doesn't mean much, since this is what they wanted. They want a controlled online Brittanica, and that's what Wikipedia is turning into.

Re:It's finished, dummies (5, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227858)

Right. The important articles were in the first million. Let's see what's coming in right now:

  • Euan Huey: "his brith Euan was born on 2 may 2000.He has a twin and has a IQ of 123.his clan is macRae and he lives in bridge of weir,scotland.Everyone loves him He is the b..." -- Deleted.
  • List of Senators in Brazil (1826-1889): "This is List of senators in Brazil 1826-1889" -- Kept.
  • Byron kroon: "Byron is Amazing" (Tag: very short new article) -- Deleted.
  • List of horror films: 2007: -- Kept.
  • Silvertone guitars : "Kiss plays this guitar brand so does the artist tj wilt" (Tag: very short new article) -- Deleted.
  • Percy the Park Keeper: "Percy the Park keeper is an animated childrens series by Nick Butterfield." -- not yet examined.

Any questions?

That's why most new articles are deleted. Most of the whining about "deletionism" is from fans who want to blither endlessly about their favorite movie/comic book/Star Trek episode/vampire. That's what Wikia is for.

Wikia ended up as a hosting service for fancruft. They have the Star [Trek|Craft|Wars|Gate] wikis, and the low-end advertisers who target that demographic. It's not going to get Jimbo Wales a private jet. [] It's useful to Wikipedia, though, in that the rabid fans can be diverted to Wikia, which has rather lower standards for inclusion.

Rules are to be broken, but not on Wikipedia. (5, Insightful)

otravi (1289804) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227374)

They also have a stupid rule regarding "how important stuff has to be" before it can be added as a new article on Wikipedia. That one alone is the main reason I never again will try to contribute anything to it.

Re:Rules are to be broken, but not on Wikipedia. (3, Interesting)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227500)

That's why I like subject-specific wikis (see sig). An article of no importance to Wikipedia may very useful in another wiki. There are also other benefits, such as community rules more appropriate to the subject.

Re:Rules are to be broken, but not on Wikipedia. (1)

bit trollent (824666) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227664)

Not only that, but this rule has resulted in a ton of information being deleted from Wikipedia. It actually seems to get less useful every day.

Wikipedia is dead. Where is the next Wikipedia? Where does the spirit of the original Wikipedia live?

Re:Rules are to be broken, but not on Wikipedia. (1)

SlashDotDotDot (1356809) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227820)

They also have a stupid rule regarding "how important stuff has to be".

On the other hand, they have this rule [] .

The solution: (0, Flamebait)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227380)

Lock it down, allow no modifications, and leave it as is. Keep it hosted though.

Honestly, the repository is large enough. If I want to find something on there I can. Anything worth being added can be handled by a small team of admins.

Oh. And of course, make it subscription based. (I kid...)

Re:The solution: (1)

MojoRilla (591502) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227674)

This is insightful? Lock down the most dynamic repository of knowledge in the world?

Monkeedude said it. The repository is large enough for him. Stop inventing! Stop becoming famous. Stop everything!!!

Re:The solution: (1)

wisty (1335733) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227824)

The most dynamic repository of knowledge in the world? What about slashdot? It's ... dynamic.

Re:The solution: (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227848)

LoL. I know it shocked me too, I'd hardly consider it the best plan, but it would ensure that Wikipedia stays in its current state of 'relative good' accuracy.

The problem with having a dynamic repository of knowledge is that there are more people who are either jerks, misinformed, or disagree, than there are people who actually KNOW the subject of which is being disputed. As such, the editors leave.

I see 1 of 2 things happening:

A) They impose some more security on the site (as they are doing), driving away some editors but essentially securing data from being deleted.


B) They keep their dynamic state, all the good editors leave, and Wikipedia becomes a text only

Re:The solution: (1)

mounthood (993037) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227844)

Oh. And of course, make it subscription based. (I kid...)

I was on Google the other day and right there was Wikipedia! Google is stealing Wikipedia!

Always happens - bloat (4, Insightful)

djdbass (1037730) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227384)

This happens to any system of sufficient size and age.
Europe has been there for a while.
The US is getting there now.

People are never content to leave well enough alone.

Re:Always happens - bloat (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227790)

And get off my lawn! Back in my day I ran programs only with 640k because it was enough for everybody!

Not only the english Wikipedia (3, Interesting)

F-3582 (996772) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227388)

The german version is having these problems, as well, with authors being frustrated, because their articles are being deleted for various stupid reasons (like: only referenced in blogs, no real-world influence, except for some obscure hacker meetings etc.) The discussions have even reached the big media.

Re:Not only the english Wikipedia (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30227468)

Wikipedia has become a bunch of little fiefdoms run by despots who jealously guard their own little world to preserve their idea of reality.

Just look at the history of the Barbra Boxer entry and see how the editors repeatably excise deleterious references, despite the fact the statements are irrefutable.

Reminds me of the global warming fanatics, they are the keepers of the Truth, facts be damned.

Re:Not only the english Wikipedia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30227518)

Right on, bro. Everyone knows she really does eat children for breakfast [] !

too much political bias (2, Interesting)

czarangelus (805501) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227390)

I stopped even trying when I was editing the Hezbollah article for a little less bias and a little more clarity and then getting all my edits erased due to Wikipedia being run by editors of the Zionist persuasion. Finding out a few days later that the CIA was editing all kinds of articles on "terrorism" and other methods of opposing the agenda of the US government was just icing on the cake. The "neutral-viewpoint" promoted by Wikipedia almost always defines their own political agenda as neutrality and any other views as "biased" or "controversial."

Re:too much political bias (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30227508)

I can imagine what someone who uses the phrase "Zionist persuasion" considers a "neutral" viewpoint on Hezbollah. I'm not crying for you.

Re:too much political bias (5, Interesting)

czarangelus (805501) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227606)

No you can't. Zionism is a political agenda defined by racial politics and largely based on religious fairy tales. For these reasons I think it constitutes racism and should not be considered acceptable by civilized peoples. Zionism isn't some made-up boogeyman - it is a real thing, and the word is used by people who are Zionists! The word and idea did not spring fully-formed from Zeus' forehead and start posting on Stormfront one afternoon.

As to what constitutes neutrality on Hezbollah, I think the issue just goes to show there is no neutrality anywhere. Every article is going to have biases either explicit or implicit as all human beings have biases explicit or implicit. Hell, there was a months-long flamewar on the Brazil article on whether it constituted linguistic imperialism to spell it Brazil rather than Brasil. I didn't expect "neutrality" in the mythological sense, but what I did expect was that the words of the senior leadership of Hezbollah on their motivations and agenda be included in an article on their organization.

Re:too much political bias (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30227704)

I stopped even trying when I was editing the Hezbollah article for a little less bias and a little more clarity and then getting all my edits erased due to Wikipedia being run by editors of the Zionist persuasion

Excuse me while I laugh my ass off. []

For the record, Hezbollah is a terrorist organization founded as the Iranian revolutionary movement's Lebanese branch with the goal of overthrowing that state's republic, exterminating all political opposition, expanding the reach of absolute Shari'a law, and waging proxy wars for Iran's benefit. That's as clear and unbiased as any reference to Hezbollah needs to be.

Re:too much political bias (3, Interesting)

czarangelus (805501) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227802)

1. Lebanon is a RINO - Republic in Name Only. Consider the huge population of disefrachized Palestinians who have been living in camps for the past fifty years. Lebanon-born "Palestinians" have it as bad as they would have it in Israel. Jordan is also guilty of this.
2/ Why is Hezbollah a "terrorist" organization? They fight in wars to keep their land free of occupation. Wars result in civilian deaths. Is this news? IDF kills civilians. Hezbollah kills civilians. Hamas kills civilians. Islamic Jihad kills civilians. US Army kills civilians. Either one is terrorist or they all are; as for Hezbollah, at least they fight on their own land and not the land of others.
3. Whatever your opinion, Hezbollah has stated that while it receives funding and support from Iran, they are not a puppet and are Lebanese fighting for Lebanese sovereignty. Consider that in the last war Christians and Druze both fought in Hezbollah [] and supported Hezbollah by overwhelming majority [] . In fact, Hezbollah offers a non-confessional alternative to the country's entrenched political system which is based entirely and sickeningly on religion

Make it harder to be an editor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30227410)

There are too many destructive people who revel in destroying content. It should be harder to become an editor. Perhaps a quota should be assigned: you can only delete 1 article for every 5 that you create.

One thing that is politically incorrect but a real dynamic: the majority of those who create are male, the majority of those who delete are female.

Re:Make it harder to be an editor (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30227572)

And the majority of all editors are mouth breathing, mother's basement dwelling, no friends, left wing ideologues.

Future schmuture (2, Insightful)

migla (1099771) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227418)

Wikipedia is what it is. Even if all the contributors dropped dead right now, it'd be the best encyclopedia around for quite some time yet.

Re:Future schmuture (3, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227578)

Wikipedia is the best encyclopedia around? Maybe if you're looking up the number of Star Wars references in an episode of Super Mario Bros. Super Show or the episode history of some esoteric anime series.

Re:Future schmuture (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227644)

What is a better encyclopedia, in your opinion? (Don't forget to factor in price. I can't use any that cost anything.)

Re:Future schmuture (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227904)

You can't use any that cost anything? Are you allergic to capitalism? Maybe a stipulation should be "it must rhyme with 'brickerspelia'"? You should probably read this article: [] and then reconsider the accessibility of non-free-as-in-beer information.

best encyclopedia (4, Funny)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227830)

it'd be the best encyclopedia around for quite some time yet.

citation needed

As a long-time contributor (4, Insightful)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227428)

I think there are three big issues. First, there is a lack of low-hanging fruit. That is, the easy articles have all been written and many have been expanded to decent lengths. That makes people less inclined to help out or to join in (and moreover to stick around). Second, the project has also become much more deletionist. Much of the material on pop-culture subjects has been either cut down or deleted outright. This has pushed many editors to other smaller wikis where they can have the level of detail they want. Moreover, many editors who previously first got hooked by writing and tweaking fun stuff are no longer getting hooked that way. Third, the deletionism has combined with a general attitude that is very bad unwelcoming to newcomers. The overall result is a serious decline. Some of these effects (such as inclusionist and pop culture editors leaving) also reinforce other aspects since when they leave it leaves the overall community more deletionist. I think the project is still healthy but it might very well not be so if these trends continue for another year or two.

Re:As a long-time contributor (1)

Ailure (853833) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227576)

I noticed the deletionist attitude as well. I think honestly Wikipedia would benefit by lowering it's standards on what is noteable, and I noticed it got stricter over the years. I rather see too many articles rather than too few.

I was discouraged the time when I added a seemingly true statement, but without stating source. I was being bold, and was hoping someone would fill it in for me, and the only sources I found were blogs... which for some reason isn't acceptable sources (which I consider a growing problem in this age). Instead of being marked with "citation needed" the statement was rejected outright, despite that anyone who would had spent 10 seconds into said case would seen it's true. That was the last time I personally bothered with Wikipedia.

Oh yeah, and it was about the webgame Cevo ripping off AoE2 graphics.

Re:As a long-time contributor (3, Insightful)

hemp (36945) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227582)

Third, the deletionism has combined with a general attitude that is very bad unwelcoming to newcomers.

You totally correct. I believe the number of people leaving is actually the result that most wiki editors wanted. It seems that every entry has at least one editors who does not want anyone messing with "his" entry.

I long ago gave up any attempt to correct misspelled words or inconsistencies within the same entry.

Re:As a long-time contributor (1)

WinterSolstice (223271) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227628)

That's sad, because it's not a decent authoritative source for non-pop culture stuff (my kid's teachers won't allow citing it, for example).

I love wikipedia (and contributed money) because it *was* a great source for pop culture stuff. Gobots? That one season of Buffy that had that character? Yeah, it's in there. All without having to suffer an epileptic seizure from reading some random fan page that looks like MySpace or GeoCities.

Re:As a long-time contributor (2, Interesting)

supersloshy (1273442) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227654)

Much of the material on pop-culture subjects has been either cut down or deleted outright. This has pushed many editors to other smaller wikis where they can have the level of detail they want.

Exactly. If I want lots of detail on a particular Haruhi book/episode I'd go to the Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya Wiki. Same for Pokemon or lyrics or homebrew DS software or anything. Wikipedia isn't supposed to have everything in one place; it's supposed to be a general source of information. Make it anything more than that and fanboys/fangirls insert a lot of unneeded information that might not even be necessary to people looking it up.

Re:As a long-time contributor (2, Funny)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227696)

You forgot one important factor - Wikipedia the RPG going into open beta. When newbies are numbed by the maze of rules (many contradictory, many obscure) and are repeatedly ganked as they cross out of the starting zone... They aren't likely to hang around. The outright hostility of the upper level players to any not in their clique leads to a hostile environment for those that do stay. And lastly, the willingness of the GM's to stand behind those that lie, cheat, and steal takes it's toll on the few that remain.

wikipedia = Seo for newspapers (1)

sjwest (948274) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227780)

Very occasional editor here on just one article and i can say that unless my subject had a big newspaper link then most of the relevant edits went /dev/null. That works well if your subject is msm worthy but i'm not promoting the times of india newspaper website usage/ad viewing.

Jimmy Wales must decide that if 'proof' is a single reuters/ap article interpreted 50 times is a fact is good. And that non msm subjects dont always have millions of sources to back them up.

I am through with wiki editing, i don't want to be a professional editor (who know little about any subject but a language it was written in)

Balls in your court Mr Wales.

Re:As a long-time contributor (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227794)

I think the deletionism is what causes the lack of low hanging fruit for a large part.

You can't get some practice by editing the article on Fidel Castro. That's almost guaranteed to cause huge arguments about politics, and discussion of wikipedia procedures related to the most minute details.

Various pop culture articles used to provide an excellent practice ground. And since TV shows and anime keep coming out there was always something to work on. If you wanted to try writing on something you could go write something about your favourite TV show, and get used to the interface, formatting, interact a bit with other people and so on. But with the strict limiting of these subjects now what remains is mostly serious subjects, which need to be approached with care. The most innocent mistakes will get you accused of being a troll.

My first attempt to contribute something not very important was initially ignored, until suddenly several weeks later it attracted lots of attention, arguments, lots of pointing to various 10 page longs WP: pages, accusations of me having an ulterior motive, and somebody adding it to some list of stupid arguments on wikipedia. It's not really welcoming. And based on things I've read on talk pages that doesn't seem to be very unusual.

This isn't surprising (5, Interesting)

rehtonAesoohC (954490) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227438)

The system is set up in such a way that when people put massive amounts of effort into adding contributions or what not, they aren't rewarded with anything for doing it other than more rules and regulations and difficulty in posting more edits and content.

Couple that with the natural tendency of people to burn themselves out of things after a while and the natural idea that as the wiki grows, it shouldn't need edits on old content and people have less and less to contribute, and you end up with a declining contribution pool... It's bound to happen inevitably, it's just a matter of when and how they deal with it when it starts to happen.

Not a surprise (5, Interesting)

Capmaster (843277) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227440)

When 'deletionists' destroy the work people are putting in, it's not surprising when the people who have put that work into Wikipedia leave the site. There's only a finite amount of things that can be written about and as Wikipedia progresses, the articles that are created must become more and more obscure. But with those kinds of articles effectively banned from Wikipedia, the only editors it needs around are those that upkeep the existing articles.

The commons suffer when people are poor (1)

Teunis (678244) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227452)

A lot of people (including me) hasn't worked since the beginning of the crash. For those of us who want to work in the commons - be it open source or open documents such as this - there are insufficient personal resources to handle these in addition to trying to find work and ensure food and shelter.

At this point, barring some strange legal international gambit on information control (ACTA? *heh* *ducking*) the commons will survive and some will be heavily involved regardless.

Me - I'll be continuing to try to find a future and the commons can wait, as it won't put food on my table and - that problem takes my excesses of time.

Not surprising. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30227458)

I used to contribute to Wikipedia, but I stopped when it became a chore to do so. These days it's impossible to add anything without someone (usually admins) throwing a childish fit and reverting it all. This occurs with information that is added with properly cited sources.

I don't even use Wikipedia to look up information any more. I use my own local version of it on a USB flash drive that I've personally streamlined and updated. It is not only faster and cleaner, but more factual than as well.

add one (5, Interesting)

Tom (822) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227464)

Exactly the reasons I left a long time ago. Glad to see others are finally doing the same, maybe the Wikipedia leadership will wake up.

"Many people are getting burnt out when they have to debate about the contents of certain articles again and again," adds Ortega."

Been there, done that. You've contributed to improve an article, a dozen people have worked on it. Then a fucktard comes along and nominates it for deletion because of lack of "notability". Delete discussion goes on, clear consensus on "keep".

Two months pass. Article gets improved further. Next fucktard comes along, delete nomination. Discussion, with links to the first one, consensus arrives at "keep" again.

Winter holidays. The same fucktard from the 2nd time comes along and nominates the article a 3rd time. This time, vocal people are away or just tired of it all. Whoops, delete request accepted by a narrow margin, all the work of everyone goes *poof*.

So you treat people like shit, destroy the result of their volunteer work, and then you're surprised they're leaving? You've gotta be kidding me.

May I ask (1)

tmk (712144) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227684)

...which article you are talking about? It sounds pretty unusual that a dozen contributors lose interest in one article at the same time. Perhaps you can provide a link to the delete discussion?

Re:add one (1)

newtown1100 (1415771) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227740)

As have I.

I've many times had something actually contributing to the page deleting simply because it doesn't follow some made up notability guideline, etc etc. It doesn't make editing or discussing interesting.

Not like it ever was.

Re:add one (1, Informative)

rm999 (775449) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227782)

Wikipedia is not a Democracy, so a delete request would never be "accepted by a narrow margin". (

Besides, if an article was up for deletion 3 times and ultimately was deleted, it had some serious issues. In all those months that passed, a single reliable source would have been enough to squash any deletion nominations right away. Why didn't you just add one?

I'm calling your bluff - please link to your old account or the article in question.

Innovation vs maintanence (3, Insightful)

Fractal Dice (696349) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227486)

It's always more fun to be breaking new ground on a project where people appreciate every contribution than it is to maintain a mature project against the normal background of misunderstandings, agendas and entropy. This is hardly unique to wikipedia.

Re:Innovation vs maintanence (3, Insightful)

SputnikPanic (927985) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227604)

Yup, that's pretty much the nature of crowd-sourcing. Sure, there'll be a certain segment that will remain dedicated to the project/task, but a lot of others will fall away when the novelty wears off or it's perceived as becoming too much work.

I'm wondering if it degrades. (5, Funny)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227488)

Can you imagine if it degrades?

Kid's paper after using Wiki as his source:

George W. Bush, the US' first retarded President, started wars in the Middle East to help his Vice President's (Dick Cheney) portfolio.

Of course, they'll be folks on the other side:

Barak Obama, America's first Socialist President along with the Wicked Witch of the West, Nancy Pelosi, turned the US into a bankrupt shell of its former self.

Then, there will be others....

Ray Vaness, the World's greatest porn actress, has been a great influence on American politics.

Now, just think of all those little kids putting references to porn actresses into their school papers and bringing them home?

I for on welcome the chaos that may ensue.

Re:I'm wondering if it degrades. (1)

stagg (1606187) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227712)

Wikipedia is already approximately that reliable as a source.

Re:I'm wondering if it degrades. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30227920)

I believe you mean Barrack Hussein Obama.

Uncontrolled administrators (4, Interesting)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227556)

Wikipedia also has a problem with site admins who do things like block people first and ask questions later. I myself was blocked for merely reporting (in the proper venue) that another user was editing in violation of his community ban.

There are admins who it appears can violate every community rule yet won't receive any sanctions. Of course people are leaving - the admins have driven them away.

Then there are the cases where people have been hounded off Wikipedia and later it has been shown that they were correct and their antagonist was the one who should have been banned.

Mark Cuban's Plan to Save Wikipedia (3, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227564)

Mr. Wales, I think that if you approached Mark Cuban [] and asked him to give Wikipedia editors a cool million dollars each not to leave, you could save Wikipedia.

Boy, dreaming up solutions when you perceive financiers to be bottomless pits of money with no brains sure is easy!

Agendaism (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227574)

Wales states that there's a drive for more accuracy -- hence the rules. The problem is that wikiadmins are not interested in precision. Protected articles may well be accurate as perceived by their agenda and groupthink, but that does not mean they are precise, nor necessarily true.

The rise and power of the wikiadmins was always going to sound the death knell for truth. It just seems to be happening faster than many expected.

It's WSJ not Cnet (1)

pileated (53605) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227622)

I'm not sure why someone would say Cnet when all Cnet does is paraphrase the article that ran in WSJ yesterday. Why not just go to the source?

It's the instant-revert crowd (1)

p3d0 (42270) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227646)

I know I find it increasingly frustrating to contribute because whatever you add, there's always someone waiting to revert it immediately without any attempt at compromise or discussion.

I also have to say that I think people will find it humourous 50 years from now when they look back at comments from 2009 about how there's not much new stuff to add. That's a bit like the fellow who wanted to close the patent office in 1899 because everything had already been invented [] .

Can't imagine why.... (2, Interesting)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227656)

Can't imagine why contributors are leaving. It's become a cesspool of those who do nothing but revert legitimate edits (to get their edit count up) because it isn't from anyone in power worth brown-nosing to.

Like juries, the people who have enough time to become a real political power in the wikipedia game are not the people we want in charge of the contributions or making decisions.

Sisyphus (4, Insightful)

swm (171547) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227662)

The gods had condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top of a mountain, whence the stone would fall back of its own weight. They had thought with some reason that there is no more dreadful punishment than futile and hopeless labor.


you monitory your pages every day

  • reverting vandalism
  • patiently explaining to every newbie who wanders by why their edit is wrong, or inappropriate
  • enduring zombie edit wars (they won't stay dead...)

all the while remembering that they aren't "your" pages, and that all you can do is make your best evidence-based case and hope that other agree with it...


you don't, and you watch as bitrot and entropy slowly but relentlessly degrade the pages to something you can't bear to look at any more.

I maintained some pages for about a year, and then after one particularly nasty edit war I gave up. Not in a petulant "they won't have me to kick around any more" way. I just stopped caring so much. Wikipedia dropped off my mental list of sites that I check every day.

I still use Wikipedia—it's near the top of every SERP. But I haven't tried to edit anything there in years.

Wikipedia is for anal retentives (1, Insightful)

mapuche (41699) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227672)

You have to be obsesive to mantain as a Wikipedia contributor. All if not most of my contribution was deleted, including CC licensed images.

Wikipedia will die for it's own greatness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30227680)

The wikipedia has great potential but same time there is lots of problems what really blows away the good contributors.

Example. You edit technical article based multiple other scientific sources. You explain things bretty deeply, create even graphics to site and then suddenly there jumps few new users who undo all the work you do because they say there was one mistake. What they should do, is to fix the problem and not undo all.

Or then there is no error, but the article does not anymore reflect their personal or public believes by persons who do not know the technical information or does not care. So they simply undo again or write back the things what you fixed. And they do not use sources or they add as sources the other wikipedia articles or even marketing infos what is simplified so much for avarage joe that the information is not accurate at all.

There comes lots of discussions about sources, what are valid but they do not even care to read them and understand because the other wikipedia articles are against them. Even that the other scientific articles what you show, proofs that other articles includes mistakes as well.

This just leads to situation where new users starts upkeeping false information because the other articles includes such. So only way to support their own information, is wikipedia itself. And no matter how much you throw a history data or scientific data, it is not accepted if it is against wikipedia itself. Problem is, people trust too much the wikipedia itself so it comes the fact to itself.

Example of technical and political correctness and support for biased articles. Ubuntu users goes trough the wikipedia adding screenshots of Ubuntu to articles where they do not belong, as there should be somekind neutral screenshot.

A week ago I checked the "GUI" article on wikipedia. []

There is added a screenshot of Ubuntu 9.10 what includes GNOME. If wanted article to be not so biased, there should be screenshots as examples of Windows 7, Mac OS X Snow Leopard, GNOME, KDE4. etc. But instead having pure GNOME screenshot as default, they use Ubuntu one. What has a Ubuntu's theme, wallpaper, iconset and even configurations applied. That does not present the modern GUI, but the Ubuntu's choise of themes and styles.

It is as biased thing as it would be adding a screenshot of Windows 7 running in classic mode, aero disabled and with ugly wallpaper.

And for one reasons to support this wallpaper place tehre, is that Ubuntu is different operating system than what the Kubuntu or any other Linux distribution is. The whol idea of that can be chased back to the situation where the OS is for Ubuntu people just the desktop environment with nice theme and wallpaper and not the technically correct, the Linux kernel. And do not even let me start about the Linux kernel and Linux articles where almost both are biased with GNU ideas. Again screenshots of Ubuntu and believes what are sometimes copied straight from canonical website.

When going to rare articles where there is no such amount of young people intrested to edit them. Like animals, history etc. The effect of the problem is much smaller. But on technical and daily things, the problem is presented very clearly. The articles what are about subjects what are typically fighted around web by opinions, are in same situation on wikipedia. No matter how much you give them a sources, they denied them by saying something "public does not care about it" or "normal user does not see it that way".

Thats why I stopped contribution to wikipedia few years ago. Because on many articles, it was just impossible to do anything.

A sign of possible improvement (5, Interesting)

snarfies (115214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227694)

I stopped participating on Wikipedia years ago due to deletionists slashing and burning any and alls article in the name of HURR HURR NOT NOTABLE. I mean, why bother? That said, I recently saw something interesting - about two months ago someone wrote an article about her negative Wikipedia experience - Bullypedia, A Wikipedian Who's Tired of Getting Beat Up [] . As a result of this article, some folks got together to start WP:NEWT [] , where they wrote articles while posing as n00bs to see how they were treated. In some cases, they were in fact treated poorly indeed. Gems include "The reason I deleted the article was that the wikilinks did not have the proper markup. In addition, "See also" should be used instead of "See articles" and "External links" should be substituted for "Sites". Willking1979 (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)" [] and User:Multixfer throwing a total shitfit when (fully appropriately) outed as being a total asshole [] .

In other news.... (3, Funny)

hitnrunrambler (1401521) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227720)

In the first 3 months of 2009 49,000 people who did nothing but patrol wikipedia all day were downsized because of the economy; raising questions of how the Internet will survive without the uselessly employed.

Maybe they really ARE dead!! (1)

The_REAL_DZA (731082) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227726)

I mean, did anyone bother to do an environmental impact study before launching something with such worldwide and long-term impact?

Did anyone do a double-blind study to make sure Wikipedia wasn't emitting harmful radiation/gasses/particles/etc?!?!

Was there even a government committee chartered to keep watch to make sure the millions of school children who access it every day weren't harmed?


Maybe Wikipedia should be shuttered until we can get a "still alive" from at least a majority of the "tens of thousands of editors" who have gone "dead" -- if even a sample of those who don't respond turn out to actually be dead then we should consider the very real possibility that Wikipedia might somehow be at fault. Remember: just because we don't see a correlation doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one.

Im tired of (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30227750)

all the special interests that constatly undermining the credebility of the wikipedia who have time and money to constantly spin information, in small increments, towards their goals of presenting things only in how they perceive things should be. They have money, time, and resources.
Large corporations, countries, special interest groups and political parties infiltrated and subverting the credibility of Wikipedia.

  Alas, Sisyphus 2.0 with changes rolling back every day.

Not merely rules, *administration* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30227798)

Generally speaking editing rules aren't so hard to follow - at the very least any useful and well-intentioned contribution can be adapted by another editor to follow the rules, allowing not-so-involved editors to contribute without having to read through volumes of style guides etc.

The real kicker is the administration going on in the site. The sheer volume of beureaucratic bullshit that goes which has no direct bearing on the usefulness of a specific edit/editor. Quite simply, from my own experience it is impossible for a user to be banned from the site (even in name alone). Every final warning will be followed by a final-final warning, any actual repercussion will be lessened on appeal, any restriction will be lifted on the basis of promises of change already made and broken numerous times before. Threats of violence against specific editors on and off WP, racist abuse, personal abuse, and general trolling will all be responded with a threat of a ban that becomes a two week edit-restriction if the offender chooses to speak against the "unfairness" of being punished for his/her actions.

And the worst thing is there are vast people on WP who love this. Not just the trolls and the POV-pushers themselves but people who love the debate, the rationalisation and apologeticism of waging these constant battles. Some bizarre subculture of wannabe-lawyers and bleeding heart liberals who have taken the argument-baiting and pedantry of a decade of internet forums to a whole new level.

Hostile embedded community (2, Insightful)

stefanlasiewski (63134) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227834)

Balderdash (pronounced /B*ryhed734as/)

Hello new user. Thanks for adding your contribution to Wikipedia, but you are not worthy. Here's a slap in your face. There is no point in re-adding your article, because I am watching you, my reputation is better then yours and I have much more free time on my hands then you do.

This new article doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for Notability [] . I've never heard of this topic, and I've heard of everything on the planet. Therefore, I am recommending this article for deletion, and then you'll have to redo it from scratch.

If you don't respond quickly, we'll delete the article. You DO check the deletion logs every day, don't you?

Wikipedia is overrun with Jews (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30227856)

That's why people are leaving.

I hear (1)

DJCouchyCouch (622482) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227916)

I hear they're meeting up with the leaving iPhone developers for a dance off!!!

Wikipedia is a joke, it should die (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30227918)

I was researching the NES Zapper (working on an emulator) and came across Wikipedia's page on it.

It mentioned that the zapper wouldn't work on projection or plasma screen TV's, and actually said "the reasons why are unknown"

Are you kidding me? Yeah, it's a magic wand imbued with the powers of the ancient elders to kill ducks, and is beyond the capacity for mortal science to understand. OR, it's just a light sensor with a 15khz low pass filter.

Just one of a million examples of Wikipedia's complete inadequacy for any kind of actual research.

I imgagine if I was researching non-canonical Mario erotic fan fiction, Wikipedia would be a treasure trove of information.

why I left Wikipedia (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30227922)

Wikipedia seems to be infested by an army of self-serving propagandists. It was because of this kind of nonsence. It's weasle words like the following that's the worst.

" Consumer versions of Windows were originally designed for ease-of-use on a single-user PC without a network connection, and did not have security features built in from the outset.

However, Windows NT and its successors are designed for security (including on a network) and multi-user PCs, but were not initially designed with Internet security in mind as much, since, when it was first developed in the early 1990s, Internet use was less prevalent

Microsoft Windows []
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?