New blog post is unintentionally funny

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
Post Reply
User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

New blog post is unintentionally funny

Post by ericbarbour » Mon Oct 22, 2018 1:00 am

http://wikipediocracy.com/2018/10/10/du ... neglected/
It should be no surprise that the age of the oldest article in the report is increasing. Back when the first “dusty articles” report was run, the oldest article was about four years old; now, eight years later, the oldest article is twice that age, so that each year the oldest article reported is about six months further along than in the last. The processes for removing articles are not adequate to deal with the queue of articles that might be in need of updates. Of course, there is no guarantee that this linear aging will continue, and there have been short periods when the age of the oldest article did decrease, but never more than a few months.

All in all, the report provides a picture of the future of the lower end of Wikipedia, particularly as editing declines. Eventually, one has to think, the report will almost cease to change, as the few reasons people find to make minor updates to these articles will come up more and more rarely.

You mean, Wiki ISN'T magic and eternal??? ooohhhh!!! You bad bad boy!!! Bend over and let James Forrester spank you with a slab of seal blubber!

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: New blog post is unintentionally funny

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Oct 22, 2018 4:46 pm

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... f=10&t=841

I stIll don't really know what he was a trying to say as a conclusion. I don't think he does either.

If Wikipedia worked perfectly, this report would already be static. Just not for the same reasons it is becoming static now.

Post Reply