Mark Nilrad wrote: > I'm curious, as the growth in Wikipedia has slowed, has the numbers of ACTIVE > users slowed as well? If you're talking about the demographics of editors - I think it is now more three years since WP attracted a very large group of people, arriving over a few months only, who created a "boom" in article production (quantity not quality). Many of those will have left by now - others have become some of our most productive editors. This can only happen once: WP became a Net phenomenon at some point in 2005, and that was because all of a sudden many people heard of it who hadn't before, or who had ignored it. I would say the growth in editors was "over trend" at that point. We are seeing more like a sustainable rate now, and probably (who knows?) a higher proportion of "encyclopedist" types. > Obviously, as you can read in the Slashdot comments (and many other places), > this is not Wikipedia's strength, at all. > One thing that is not at all obvious to me is that there is any really really credible reporting on this or other aspects of Wikipedia. It's anecdotal at best - one or two incidents taken to stand for the site as a whole, and its complexities. Plus people writing ignorant and inaccurate stuff, of course.
Charles _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
