Number of Wikipedia editors has declined by 80k over the past two years!

[ylevental]

Source: https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipe ... ts|monthly

This is for small numbers of edits. The number of 100+ edit editors actually increased during this period, but only by 800 people.

[ericbarbour]

Once again, because most of the new people on this forum have never heard of it: the turning point was the Essjay scandal in early 2007. After the New Yorker outed Essjay as a pathological liar, and Jimbo openly said he "didn't have a problem with it".

The screaming this triggered eventually induced Wales to push Mr. Jordan out. And he turned right around and hired Jordan at Wikia. For all we know Jordan is still working there (now called Fandom.com) somewhere. Good place for him too. (Unlike WMF projects, Fandom.com is run in a totally opaque, secretive and authoritarian manner, and every employee is forced to sign an extremely long and restrictive NDA. Incredibly, I have yet to see ANY revelations of scandals or corruption inside Fandom.com, apart from a couple of early things connecting them to the WMF. Even Facebook leaks like a sieve by comparison. Not that anyone would care about what happens in the Fandom mess.)

After Mr. Jordan went across the street to (continue to) work for Jimbo the Dimbo, thousands of WP content writers realized that WP was run by lying, dissembling, crazy bastards. And then the "editor engagement", after rising exponentially for more than two years, started to decline.

[Kumioko]

There are a bunch of reasons for the decline including, but not limited too:
- the toxic editing environment
- most major articles are already created
- content creators are treated like they are the problem
- Wikipedia has gone hard left with no desire ro be unbiased.
- it takes months to get an article "approved" once its been created

[boredbird]

Funny thing is if they ever managed to bust all the sockpuppets that would probably be the majority.

[Kumioko]

I can tell you i've been using sock for about the last 3 years. I'm certain some people know and it's only a matter of time until they block it and chaos ensues when they vandalize thousands of articles by deleting or reverting all my edits.

[adamovicm]

I can tell you i've been using sock for about the last 3 years. I'm certain some people know and it's only a matter of time until they block it and chaos ensues when they vandalize thousands of articles by deleting or reverting all my edits.

Why are you creating socks? There is nothing you can gain, AFAIK?

[Kumioko]

Truthfully...just to be pointy really. As a banned editor I know they'll delete anything I create. So, i do 100% positive edits so when I get caught and they get deleted, they're showing everyone they don't care about content and would burn the project to the ground rather than allow me to edit.

At the very least theyll have a huge amount of work reviewing my contributions for approval. Since the majority are under the Women in Red project that create extra drama. And again, all the edits are positive and I get thanked daily for it not knowing its me. So that further shows my ban was bullshit and political.

Plus, as "an editor in good standing" I get to vote, or at least comment, on things like telling Jimbo to go fuck himself!

[boredbird]

Inspired by several posters to this board I have decided to devote my life to wasting other people's time. It's revenge for them wasting mine.

[Dr Mario]

There are a bunch of reasons for the decline including, but not limited too:
- the toxic editing environment
- most major articles are already created
- content creators are treated like they are the problem
- Wikipedia has gone hard left with no desire ro be unbiased.
- it takes months to get an article "approved" once its been created

I don't know about Hard left bias, maybe I'm not reading those wikipedia articles that have gone in that direction, but only bias I have seen on Wikipedia/fandoms over the years is this "I'm stupid and I want to stay stupid". No wonder they don't like experts to come in and edit/fix various articles on there. Wikipedia is slogan should be "IF its broken, Don't fix it".

[Bbb23sucks]

There are a bunch of reasons for the decline including, but not limited too:
- the toxic editing environment
- most major articles are already created
- content creators are treated like they are the problem
- Wikipedia has gone hard left with no desire ro be unbiased.
- it takes months to get an article "approved" once its been created

I don't know about Hard left bias, maybe I'm not reading those wikipedia articles that have gone in that direction, but only bias I have seen on Wikipedia/fandoms over the years is this "I'm stupid and I want to stay stupid". No wonder they don't like experts to come in and edit/fix various articles on there. Wikipedia is slogan should be "IF its broken, Don't fix it".

If anything, I'd say Wikipedia has neoliberal bias. Economically right-wing and socially "progressive" - the status quo in the imperial core.