Bbb23sucks wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 2:01 am
Link to the actual paper?
Open collaboration systems, such as Wikipedia, need to maintain a pool of volunteer contributors to remain relevant. Wikipedia was created through a tremendous number of contributions by millions of contributors. However, recent research has shown that the number of active contributors in Wikipedia has been declining steadily for years and suggests that a sharp decline in the retention of newcomers is the cause. This article presents data that show how several changes the Wikipedia community made to manage quality and consistency in the face of a massive growth in participation have ironically crippled the very growth they were designed to manage. Specifically the restrictiveness of the encyclopedia’s primary quality control mechanism and the algorithmic tools used to reject contributions are implicated as key causes of decreased newcomer retention. Furthermore, the community’s formal mechanisms for norm articulation are shown to have calcified against changes—especially changes proposed by newer editors.
https://stuartgeiger.com/papers/abs-ris ... ipedia.pdf
My guess is that this PHD, who has been ahead of the curve for years, has left Wikipedia behind in favor of greener pastures with Microsoft AI (which is a replacement technology)
A key phrase was that Wikipedia is "calcified" which means;
When we refer to an institution as becoming "calcified," we are typically using a metaphorical sense of the term. In this context, it means that the institution has become rigid, inflexible, and resistant to change. It implies that the institution has developed a hardened structure or mindset that hampers its ability to adapt, innovate, or respond effectively to new challenges or ideas.
A calcified institution often exhibits the following characteristics:
Resistance to Change: A calcified institution tends to resist or reject new ideas, practices, or approaches. It may cling to traditional methods and processes, even if they have become outdated or inefficient.
Bureaucracy and Red Tape: A calcified institution often suffers from excessive bureaucracy and red tape. Decision-making processes may be slow and convoluted, with numerous layers of approvals and hierarchical structures that impede efficiency and agility.
Lack of Innovation: In a calcified institution, there may be a lack of emphasis on innovation and creativity. New initiatives or projects may face resistance or get stifled by established routines and entrenched attitudes.
Stagnant Culture: A calcified institution may have a stagnant culture, where ideas are not encouraged or nurtured. The organization may lack a spirit of collaboration, learning, and open communication.
Inflexible Policies and Procedures: Calcified institutions often have rigid policies and procedures that leave little room for adaptation or customization. They may be slow to respond to changing circumstances or emerging needs.
Hierarchical Structures: A calcified institution may maintain hierarchical structures that discourage collaboration, empowerment, and the free flow of ideas. Decision-making power may be concentrated at the top, hindering decentralization and agility.
Lack of Accountability: A calcified institution may suffer from a lack of accountability, where individuals or departments are not held responsible for their actions or performance. This lack of accountability can contribute to complacency and an aversion to change.
It's important to note that institutions can become calcified for various reasons, such as a long history, deeply ingrained traditions, resistance to external influences, or an aversion to risk. Overcoming institutional calcification often requires visionary leadership, a culture of innovation, and a willingness to embrace change and adapt to new circumstances.
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."