this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2023
453 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

59201 readers
2829 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 108 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Looks like they nearly shut the door on new admins circa 2008 and the existing group is slowly attriting.

Wikipedia is an RPG and it’s too hard for new players.

[–] GunnarRunnar@kbin.social 55 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Hopefully they realize it's not healthy for Wikipedia in long term and make a course correction.

No idea how they work internally but probably some kind of mentoring program would be in order. There's no way someone relatively new will learn all their quirks that have been developed in the past decade and too many people on the internet expect you to know everything already to be worth a shit to them.

[–] Silverseren@kbin.social 65 points 1 year ago (8 children)

There is a mentoring program and I'm a part of it. Unfortunately, a lot of the accounts going through it very blatantly aren't there to actually make a good Wikipedia article on something, but to instead promote themselves or their company.

[–] gibmiser@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Half-baked idea incoming.

Wiki Jr. A Wikipedia dedicated to kids culture. Kids contribute and edit, have a mentor, put it on college applications. When they turn 18 can migrate account to real Wikipedia.

[–] Silverseren@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Possibly, though Wikipedia and all of its related projects have an 18+ requirement. Likely because of copyright issues, as under 18 year olds legally can't give up a share-alike license on the content they make.

[–] Aatube@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Note that this requirement is not really enforced

[–] Silverseren@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

It is if you reveal you're underaged. But if you keep quiet about it, no one will know. That's true for the entirety of the internet.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] GentlemanLoser@ttrpg.network 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Aatube@kbin.social 28 points 1 year ago (5 children)

How have they “basically shut the door” in new admins? There has been three new admins in the last three months and there is currently an ongoing request for adminship which has a 100% support rate

[–] Dee@lemmings.world 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Maybe they were denied as a Wikipedia admin? lol

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] harmonea@kbin.social 75 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Everyone's pointing out that this is specifically about admins (not editors) and the general difficulty of wikipedia editing specifically due to its rules and reversions, but I really feel compelled to offer a counterpoint: this applies to wiki editing in general.

I've been editing mediawiki-based game sites since the mid 2000s - before Wikia became Fandom, before it was evil, before it started gobbling up smaller wikis with tempting financial offers. I took a decade+ off and only recently found myself drawn back into the hobby in the last couple of years when I found a game I loved that had a burgeoning wiki that seemed to need help.

I was handed admin privileges within a month because an extension I wanted to use (ReplaceText) was locked behind admin. Two years later, I'm still there because I hold 85-90% of the edits on it. And I. Just. Can't. Get. Help. Not even from the site owner that handed me admin. I've gotten interest from I think seven whole people in all that time, and all but two dropped off within a week or two; the remaining two have a page or two they each maintain but leave the rest of the site to me. And this is a live service game, so it's a neverending stream of event pages and new content that I, and only I, keep going. (Worse: the live service content follows predictable formats, so most of my new pages start by copying another page. This would be so easy for anyone to learn.)

No one wants to learn how to edit wikis anymore. It doesn't have to do with the high position or the rules of a specific site. It's a dying hobby viewed as too hard for content consumers to wrap their heads around.

[–] shapis@lemmy.ml 35 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Not gonna lie. I think most people just don't want work for free for some company's benefit.

Why are you providing a service for some live service game that doesn't pay you for it ?

[–] harmonea@kbin.social 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

They do pay me for it actually, in in-game currency, as part of the same content creator program they use to reward fan artists and streamers and such. In the lonely "why bother" moments, it's all that keeps me editing.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 1 year ago

Did Marx and Lenin never write about "hobbies"?

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No one wants to learn how to edit wikis anymore. It doesn't have to do with the high position or the rules of a specific site. It's a dying hobby viewed as too hard for content consumers to wrap their heads around.

Is there like... a way of "getting into" it? I feel part of the issue might be the lack of a cultural pipeline for people who are the right personality type to potentially enjoy it to ever be exposed to it as a potential hobby. The closest I've ever seen to any kind of popular internet culture referencing it is that Randall Munroe would occasionally make reference to wiki editing in his XKCD comics and blagposts.

[–] harmonea@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Idk, for me getting into it was just a matter of (1) use wiki as a reference (2) see thing on wiki that needs fixed (3) try to fix it myself, hitting preview and pulling from other similar pages to get formatting right (4) it works - hobby interest awakens.

People nowadays seem too afraid to mess things up to ever consider trying step 3 on their own. I get this impression when I occasionally help other game wikis as well - sometimes one of their templates will seem especially complicated and I just drop the relevant info in their discord instead, and I get all the same pleading not to worry about messing things up before I say "actually I just had to get back to my own wiki and didn't have time to play with it, sorry!" (Shoutout to rimworld wiki admins for being neat and taking submissions through discord like that)

[–] ryannathans@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Interesting experience. We started a wiki for our open source project, the community hit the ground running with it. I couldn't have built a better wiki myself. Players love contributing to the wiki every game update. It's bizarre how polar opposite our experiences are.

[–] harmonea@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not that bizarre - a community that's coalescing around an open source project is sure to be a lot more inclined toward technical hobbies than the one that gathers around an otome game. I knew that from the start... but still, I was hoping for more like-minded fans than none. Back when I started editing on an MMORPG wiki, people were a lot more willing to pitch in, even if they weren't that confident.

Glad to hear your project is going well, at least.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 73 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This seems somewhat important. Things, even major institutions in the internet, can be very generational. Never thought about that in terms of Wikipedia before.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] twistedtxb@lemmy.ca 51 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Many people pointed this out in the link but yeah, it's much harder to make edits / entries in wikipedia nowadays.

The rules are more strict and you have to respect an increasing number of rules, etc.

I remember when Wikipedia started to get some steam, it was basically a text editor with very basic hyperlink-style formatting.

Minor changes / typos are still easy to do, but frankly I wouldn't know how to start anymore if I wanted to create a new entry.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 52 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I've corrected a typo before and had it reversed by a bot. Why the fuck would I help them again?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Car@lemmy.dbzer0.com 37 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I've tried editing a few articles years ago, only to have everything undone hours later with no explanation why and nothing in the way of constructive criticism for whatever invisible criteria the power users were looking for. I don't even bother anymore and avoid using the entire site if I can find what I need elsewhere.

Push away eager contributors and you're stuck with the old guard before you realize it.

[–] ultranaut@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That was my experience trying to clean up some obvious typos. I've never bothered trying to contribute again.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] GnuLinuxDude@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unfortunately as more and more people got online it became more and more ripe for abuse. I can't imagine Wikipedia not getting horrible defaced if its editorial standards were still in 2006. Old Wikipedia had some weird shit. Not every mid-level WW2 Nazi commander needed a page of thinly-veiled apologia, and thankfully many of those excesses are already dealt with. Also, the articles in general are of a higher quality than they used to be.

I hope they can work out a solution that allows trusted junior editors to become admins more easily.

[–] Silverseren@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It is funny looking back to the earliest articles and how little rules and regulations there were for making them. Including just how loose the reliable source rules were, since there was little oversight on using, say, someone's blog as a source of information.

[–] Maven@lemmy.sdf.org 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Back in the early days, I noticed my town had a wikipedia entry, but no demonym (word for people who live there; e.g. New Yorker, San Franciscan). I thought of a slightly rude word whose first half happened to be my town's name (think if, say, Parisians were called "Parisites"), and added it as the demonym, totally unsourced, as a joke to show my buddy. It stayed. For a few years it stayed, never questioned. Then, the new Mayor used it in a speech; presumably, she'd looked it up on wikipedia. That speech was published in the local paper. The local paper was added to the page as a source, and not by me. A high-school gag between friends was now a sourced and cited fact.

[–] Mannivu@feddit.it 11 points 1 year ago

So basically this XKCD comics happened in real life https://xkcd.com/978/

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HidingCat@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yea, I'm happy to make minor edits and do reverts on vandalism, but starting something? Man, I have no idea what the best practices are.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

In general you can just do it. As long as it's not malicious it's probably fine.

One of their rules/motos is "be bold"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold

Creating new articles seems hard though

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] itsmect@monero.town 32 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I've lost all my respect for the official wikipedia when they deleted a page that I frequented regular. It was an overview about the generational differences between products from one large manufacturer. iirc it was dismissed as an ad or something.

The infuriating part was that this page existed for 10+ years, had 200 different authors, and 100k+ monthly views. But yeah, mods went power tripping with no regard to the dozens of hours unpaid volunteers put in. Fuck this

[–] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah any good faith edit I’ve ever made gets reverted within 5 minutes. Why should I care to contribute if that’s the case? I stopped donating to wikipedia.

The handful of people that maintain it can have their kingdom.

[–] itsmect@monero.town 8 points 1 year ago

After I noticed this bs the very first thing I did was checking if archive.org had a copy, which they did, and since then I regularly donate to them instead.

[–] SchizoDenji@lemm.ee 17 points 1 year ago

It's a massive problem. Pro wrestling pages have been fucked over by the same powertripping mods for years. Earlier the page had all the moves/finishers and entrance music written there but all of it was removed for no logical reason.

[–] _s10e@feddit.de 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Just a showerthought:

Maybe that's part of a much bigger generational divide. Maybe Wikipedia is one of the last bastions of the old pre-commercialization internet. "From the people for the people", but actually from people whose hobby it is to spend time in front of a computer screen.

BBS systems, usenet, forums, early websites, slashdot, open source, Wikipedia, early reddit, ...

in contrast to: ConpuServe, AOL, Yahoo, Facebook, Amazon, Tiktok

Editing early Wikipedia waa easy, fun, and meant something. You freed information from behind a paywall. Free as in speech.

Now, everything is free as in beer ("some restrictions apply") and editing a wiki is no longer easy when you grew up swiping an iphone, not hacking a unix terminal. This, plus admin culture.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] alvvayson@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

I think this happens to all professions.

I edited articles as a teenager in the early 00s when most people still used brittanica and Encarta. The quality was probably really bad, but the articles didn't yet exist or only had a stump.

But the articles now have a much higher quality, with good sources and a very consistent style. If an article doesn't exist today, it was purposefully removed because it did not meet the criteria to have a wiki page.

Obviously, such a thing becomes more of a dedicated hobby and not something a few amateurs do on a whim.

Similar things happened to YouTube videos, or historically, to things like singing, story telling, quilting, etc.

As something becomes more popular, the pool of participants grows and the selection becomes more difficult.

[–] counselwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If I understand this correctly, Wikipedia might be in trouble once the old guard retires because new ones aren't coming?

[–] chickenf622@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago

That's one take away. An alternative I've seen is that it's much harder to become an admin. The alternative makes sense to me, but definitely still be an issue since most people only have so much free work they're willing to put in.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FarceMultiplier@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I gave up editing as a hobby when others got really pissy with me when I said that just having a newspaper mention a restaurant did not make the restaurant notable.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›