# Wikipedians are the reason Wikipedia is dying **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [February 23, 2016, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedians-are-the-reason-wikipedia-is-dying/746921 "2016-02-23T23:02:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![CairoCarol](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cairocarol/32/3825_2.png) [@CairoCarol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CairoCarol)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2016, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedians-are-the-reason-wikipedia-is-dying/746921/41 "2016-02-24T18:34:37Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > What you are saying here is that you view wiki as a creative writing outlet for yourself; not as a resource for the world. I did not read **Cardboard’s** post that way at all. Humanity is constantly generating new things to learn about - whether it be studies in biology or astronomy, or a new international conflict, or a new style of music, or anything else. I take it that Cardboard, like most of us, would prefer to contribute by writing up those discoveries, events, and trends. It is a satisfying intellectual challenge to present information clearly. Fixing typos or adding a death date to a biography is less of a thrill. I suspect most Wiki editors would be glad to do their share of the boring tasks as long as they were free to contribute more meaningfully as well. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2016, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedians-are-the-reason-wikipedia-is-dying/746921/42 "2016-02-24T19:17:28Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Wikipedia has a strong atheist/skeptic bias, so their content on anything paranormal is highly compromised. Perhaps some folks with paranormal abilities could woo-woo that content back into an uncompromised state? That would show those wikipedians!! ---
**Author:** ![lisiate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f05b48/32.png) [@lisiate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lisiate)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2016, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedians-are-the-reason-wikipedia-is-dying/746921/43 "2016-02-24T20:02:31Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Hmm. I guess I would be one of those that dropped off; mid-2009 was probably the last time I was a frequent editor. I don’t feel that anybody deterred me, though. Pretty much the same for me (fun fact - I wrote the 100,000th article). No one person in particular drove me off, just the ever-increasing number of policies and guidelines turned a fun little hobby into a real chore. Becoming a dad didn’t help matters either I guess. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2016, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedians-are-the-reason-wikipedia-is-dying/746921/44 "2016-02-24T20:11:16Z")
Here’s a example. I tried to add a bit to the SCA article. Some editor deleted it, and demanded a cite. Now, it wasnt controversial, just a little bit of extra info. Wiki has never required a cite for every edit, yet he wont let my addition go thru. And he is being a dick about it, too. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2016, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedians-are-the-reason-wikipedia-is-dying/746921/45 "2016-02-24T20:48:56Z")
> [@Cardboard](#): > > One of two things is going to happen, in my view. Wikipedia will stabilize at 25,000-29,000 active users per month, or in a couple years we will see an exponential decrease in editors dropping out, since they see no effort in continuing since “no one else” participates anymore – like with a forum that see a drop in membership, once a critical number of members disappear, the site’s death is basically imminent since posting and activity dry up. > > “We are not replenishing our ranks,” [said Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales.](http://gawker.com/5827835/wikipedia-is-slowly-dying) > > \*[Wikipedia Statistics - Tables - Active wikipedians](https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediansEditsGt5.htm) I don’t understand why this constitutes Wikipedia dying. Not to point out the obvious here, but there had to be some point at which people started running out of new articles to create. I was one of the first contributors to the Wikipedia page on baseball’s Hall of Fame; its current structure and a fair amount of the first few sections of content are my work (though it’s now ten times better than when I first fixed the original, totally wrong, entry.) I did a bunch of other baseball articles too. But I don’t anymore, because there are none left to do, really. Nothing remotely as important lacks an article, and new information may not really need 30,000 contributors. Wikipedia’s health is determined by how many people USE it, not how many people WRITE it. ---
**Author:** ![CairoCarol](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cairocarol/32/3825_2.png) [@CairoCarol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CairoCarol)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2016, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedians-are-the-reason-wikipedia-is-dying/746921/46 "2016-02-24T21:14:43Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Not to point out the obvious here, but there had to be some point at which people started running out of new articles to create. Not only is it not obvious, I think it’s wrong. Wars begin and end. Scientific discoveries are made. Famous artists emerge. Movements rise and fall. Inventions change the way we lead our lives. I could go on, but I hope you take my point. There is always something new under the sun. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2016, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedians-are-the-reason-wikipedia-is-dying/746921/47 "2016-02-24T21:19:20Z")
> [@CairoCarol](#): > > There is always something new under the sun. Sure, but there’s not always the same ‘backlog’ of unwritten articles about past and known things. ---
**Author:** ![CairoCarol](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cairocarol/32/3825_2.png) [@CairoCarol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CairoCarol)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2016, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedians-are-the-reason-wikipedia-is-dying/746921/48 "2016-02-24T21:23:43Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Sure, but there’s not always the same ‘backlog’ of unwritten articles about past and known things. No argument there. But there is a major difference between “not the same backlog of unwritten articles” and “we’re running out of articles to create.” ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2016, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedians-are-the-reason-wikipedia-is-dying/746921/49 "2016-02-24T21:30:22Z")
> [@Cardboard](#): > > In January 2007, the English Wikipedia had 48,000 active users (5+ edits per month). In January 2010, that number was down to 38,000. In January 2013, that number was down to 33,000 and in January of this year, it was down to 31,000. At its height, Wikipedia had nearly, 51,000 active editors. The number didn’t even drop below 35,000 until midway through 2010. But within the past year, the number has dropped below 30,000 with increasing frequency … the last time Wikipedia had that few editors was in early 2006, before Wikipedia became “big.”\* > > One of two things is going to happen, in my view. Wikipedia will stabilize at 25,000-29,000 active users per month It rang mild alarm bells for me when I saw your use of the word “users.” I would have thought “active users” were the people who actively **use** Wikipedia—you know, the people who read it, browse it, look things up on it—not (just) the people who write or edit it. But I thought maybe I was just being overly persnickety about word usage, until I came across the following comment: > [@LSLGuy](#): > > What you are saying here is that you view wiki as a creative writing outlet for yourself; not as a resource for the world. I don’t know whether this accusation is justified, but if it is, consider yourself admonished: Wikipedia, like any decent reference work, exists for the benefit of its readers, not its compilers. ---
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2016, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedians-are-the-reason-wikipedia-is-dying/746921/50 "2016-02-24T21:36:49Z")
TV Tropes had the same problem - a bunch of editors turned into dicks. TV Tropes used to be fun to add to and an engaging place but then there was a few assholes who decided their way was the only right way. I fear sometimes about Wikipedia, because from everything I’ve heard, it’s mostly young white males editing the articles. (I’ll see if I can find the last place I read it). Which means that once again, white people are writing the history of the world. It’s not my most preferred method of remembering the truth. Ah, right on Wikipedia. it would be amusing if only it weren’t. Anyway I have always taken Wikipedia with a grain of salt but I take two grains if it’s an article about anything controversial, about women, or both. > [@](#): > > The common characteristics of average Wikipedians inevitably color the content of Wikipedia. The average Wikipedian on the English Wikipedia is (1) a male, (2) technically inclined, (3) formally educated, (4) an English speaker (native or non-native), (5) aged 15–49, (6) from a majority-Christian country, (7) from a developed nation, (8) from the Northern Hemisphere, and (9) likely employed as a white-collar worker or enrolled as a student rather than being employed as a blue-collar worker.[3] > > Women are underrepresented on Wikipedia, making up less than 15% of active contributors.[4] A 2011 Wikimedia Foundation survey found that 8.5% of editors are women.[5] The gender gap has not been closing over time and, on average, female editors leave Wikipedia earlier than male editors.[6] Research suggests that the gender gap has a detrimental effect on content coverage: articles with particular interest to women tend to be shorter, even when controlling for variables that affect article length.[6] ---
**Author:** ![Cardboard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/49beb7/32.png) [@Cardboard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cardboard)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2016, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedians-are-the-reason-wikipedia-is-dying/746921/51 "2016-02-24T21:40:15Z")
> [@Anaamika](#): > > TV Tropes had the same problem - a bunch of editors turned into dicks. TV Tropes used to be fun to add to and an engaging place but then there was a few assholes who decided their way was the only right way. > > I fear sometimes about Wikipedia, because from everything I’ve heard, it’s mostly young white males editing the articles. (I’ll see if I can find the last place I read it). Which means that once again, white people are writing the history of the world. It’s not my most preferred method of remembering the truth. > > Ah, right on Wikipedia. it would be amusing if only it weren’t. Anyway I have always taken Wikipedia with a grain of salt but **I take two grains if it’s an article about anything controversial, about women, or both**. Or Jewish. There is a strong “Jewish lobby” that will do everything within its power to sugarcoat or gloss over (or outright remove) stuff that may make Jews or Judaism look bad. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2016, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedians-are-the-reason-wikipedia-is-dying/746921/52 "2016-02-24T23:34:22Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Perhaps some folks with paranormal abilities could woo-woo that content back into an uncompromised state? That would show those wikipedians!! You’re a regular laff riot, John Mace. Heck, you should call yourself John Carson or John Carter!!! ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2016, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedians-are-the-reason-wikipedia-is-dying/746921/53 "2016-02-25T00:08:13Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I agree with you. The trouble is that there is disagreement about what the facts are. I admit it’s a tricky issue, but there is also no question that there is a strong atheist bias in how Wikipedia is edited. The default is atheism. Any one religion or paranormal belief may be true or accurate, but in the phase of conflicting and unproven information from a variety of sources, the only way to present anything is from the view that it’s all just things that “people believe” but not true in itself. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2016, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedians-are-the-reason-wikipedia-is-dying/746921/54 "2016-02-25T01:07:46Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > The default is atheism. Any one religion or paranormal belief may be true or accurate, but in the phase of conflicting and unproven information from a variety of sources, the only way to present anything is from the view that it’s all just things that “people believe” but not true in itself. Wouldn’t that be default agnosticism? ---
**Author:** ![Green\_Bean](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/green_bean/32/1760_2.png) [@Green\_Bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Green_Bean)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2016, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedians-are-the-reason-wikipedia-is-dying/746921/55 "2016-02-25T01:36:20Z")
> [@Cardboard](#): > > Or Jewish. There is a strong “Jewish lobby” that will do everything within its power to sugarcoat or gloss over (or outright remove) stuff that may make Jews or Judaism look bad. The international Jewish conspiracy controls Wikipedia too? Good to know. > [@CairoCarol](#): > > Not to mention [this list of gamelan ensembles in the US.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gamelan_ensembles_in_the_United_States) > > So I guess the good guys did win, eventually. Must have been that petition, or whatever it was, that I signed. Would you believe there are NO gamelan ensembles in New Jersey? I’m genuinely shocked. But we do have Jews. Shitloads of 'em. All scouring Wikipedia for stuff to sugarcoat. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2016, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedians-are-the-reason-wikipedia-is-dying/746921/56 "2016-02-25T01:41:15Z")
Mmmmm, sugarcoated Gamera. ---
**Author:** ![Green\_Bean](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/green_bean/32/1760_2.png) [@Green\_Bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Green_Bean)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2016, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedians-are-the-reason-wikipedia-is-dying/746921/57 "2016-02-25T02:03:28Z")
This is seriously bugging me. How do we not have a gamelan ensemble? Nebraska has one. Maine has one. WYOMING has one, and it’s the least populous state! Vermont, which is barely any bigger, has THREE!!! Every nearby state has at least one. New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Connecticut, Maryland. There are only two states on the eastern seaboard that don’t have a gamelan ensemble, us and South Carolina - and that’s just about the only thing we have in common with South Carolina. (I hear it’s an awfully nice place to visit though…unless you’re looking for some hot gamelan action.) ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2016, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedians-are-the-reason-wikipedia-is-dying/746921/58 "2016-02-25T02:29:41Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > It kinda seems natural that there’d be less people participating as the project matured, just because of a reduced number of things to write about… No, there are still a lot of Stubs, or articles requesting contributors, so there is still plenty to write about. I tried to edit an article once, only to update the links to a major site that had undergone a major reorganization, but the edits never went through. I’ve always assumed I did something wrong, but now I wonder. > [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > I was a very prolific Wikipedia administrator, until I was driven off. And I’ve never looked back. This is beginning to sounds a lot like the thread on the SCA from a couple of weeks ago, isn’t it? > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > The default is atheism. Any one religion or paranormal belief may be true or accurate, but in the phase of conflicting and unproven information from a variety of sources, the only way to present anything is from the view that it’s all just things that “people believe” but not true in itself. I don’t think I agree with anything in that post. Atheism is one of many view of the nature of the universe, but there is no reason it should be the default. True and accurate are not entirely synonymous. Several religions and paranormal beliefs might co-exist. Beliefs and belief systems are not trivial, in that they “just” shape how we not only interpret but actually view our world. You might be an atheist, and that is fine, but you have no more right to declare your view of the nature of the universe the default than does a Voudun Mambo or Episcopalian bishop (and I say that with complete respect for the Mambo; I’m sure the bishop would not care what this lapsed Catholic thinks). ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2016, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedians-are-the-reason-wikipedia-is-dying/746921/59 "2016-02-25T02:57:40Z")
> [@Green\_Bean](#): > > This is seriously bugging me. How do we not have a gamelan ensemble? Nebraska has one. Maine has one. WYOMING has one, and it’s the least populous state! Vermont, which is barely any bigger, has THREE!!! > > Every nearby state has at least one. New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Connecticut, Maryland. There are only two states on the eastern seaboard that don’t have a gamelan ensemble, us and South Carolina - and that’s just about the only thing we have in common with South Carolina. (I hear it’s an awfully nice place to visit though…unless you’re looking for some hot gamelan action.) The difference is that in NJ you have a shorter drive to visit the NY, PA, DE, or MD chapters than the WY folks have just to get their one group together to play. Hell, you could drive from home in South Jersey to the Northern Vermont group and that distance would barely take you across the nearest county line in WY. But you would pass more traffic than they will. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Green\_Bean](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/green_bean/32/1760_2.png) [@Green\_Bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Green_Bean)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2016, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedians-are-the-reason-wikipedia-is-dying/746921/60 "2016-02-25T03:29:16Z")
> [@j666](#): > > No, there are still a lot of Stubs, or articles requesting contributors, so there is still plenty to write about. Sure, in the abstract. In practice, a lot of stuff is effectively finite, amd has long since been adequately covered. For example, national flags. There are only a certain number of internationally recognized sovereign nations, and thus only a certain number of national flags. There is a flag article for every one, including history, symbolism, protocol, alternate designs, previous designs, similar flags, etc. Either included in that article or on a separate page, you’ll find pictures and info about all sorts of military and subnational flags. Check out Flag of Japan and List of Japanese Flags. You want to see the naval standard of the Japanese minister of defense? It’s in there. You want to know what that thing on Fukushima Prefecture’s flag is? It’s in there. You want to know exactly which Pantone color to use for the red on the the national flag? It’s in there. There are also boatloads of articles and info on flags that do not belong to internationally recognized sovereign nations. Nagorno-Karabakh? Covered. Zaire no longer exists, but you can see a picture of its flag. How about the unofficial flag of Guadeloupe? Yep, both variants. I’d like even more flag information, pictures, and articles, and stuff will always need to be updated, but the work on national flags is substantially complete. Each new piece of info is less and less likely to be significant. It’s only natural that activity would fall off as the project matures. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedians-are-the-reason-wikipedia-is-dying/746921.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedians-are-the-reason-wikipedia-is-dying/746921.md?page=4)