This is slightly more complex. Some projects have a very large and steady
decline, especially in new contributors,[1] while some projects have an
increase, especially in the established users group.[2] Why it is so is not
clear at all, but some editors favor an idea that other sites like Facebook
have drained the pool of available editors. What is pretty clear is that
users have limited time and Wikipedia is not what they favor the most. To
little social and cultural credit for the work, perhaps even a hostile
environment, can be attributed to the decline.

The referenced graphs are made by averaging over a one year window, and
taking a diff over one year to make the trend visible. It looks backward in
time to avoid the artificial drop-off that became so much discussed some
years ago!

[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nowiki-stats-new-users-2017-01-15.png
[2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nowiki-stats-100-users-2017-01-15.png

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:16 AM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Zubin and welcome.
>
> The discussions about declining editor levels started to go quiet in mid
> 2015 after we noticed that numbers had started to rally at the end of 2014.
>
> Here is the signpost article that covered part of this in 2015
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/
> 2015-08-26/In_focus
> That focussed on the very active, but the raw edit count shows the same
> pattern on English wikipedia, a decline from 2007 to 2014, then a rally and
> the last couple of years being broadly stable.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Time_Between_Edits
>
> "Wikipedia in terminal decline" was an interesting story for journalists
> and others, "maturing organisation is broadly stable on several measures"
> sounds just a tad boring.
>
> As for your concern about bureaucracy and philosophical rants. Many of the
> policies are complex, and there are even examples of things that contradict
> each other. But it is a very very complex system, and some of the
> complexity comes from hard won compromises between people with very
> different views. A commercial organisation could have done some things more
> simply, but a volunteer organisation can't simply tell people to do what
> they are paid to do. I suspect that many reforms are possible and may even
> be necessary, but it really helps when you are changing something to
> understand the different perspectives that lead to that compromise.
>
>
> WereSpielChequers
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 5
> > Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 21:42:32 +0800
> > From: Zubin JAIN <jain16...@gapps.uwcsea.edu.sg>
> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Time to simplify the Bureaucracy ?
> > Message-ID:
> >         <CABRVQKPs3YDucchXt7VHshrdrvrz=PMVD5u3pNeVFM+fjC2=sQ@mail.
> > gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > Hello,
> > As a rare newcomer to the Wikimedia project, I've been thinking of some
> of
> > the factors that seem to discourage me from contributing and one of the
> > primary ones seem to be the fact that the way the administration is
> > organized and rules enforced is often vague and unclear. The definition
> and
> > the method of collection of the vague idea of "Consensus" aren't easily
> > found and take a lot of digging to get out.
> >
> > A lot of the guideline is often mixed with philosophical rants that often
> > seem to contradict each other and has grown in size to the point that
> it's
> > unreasonable for any newcomer to have read through it all. The project
> > designed to work on consensus and community often seems unresponsive and
> > automated as anarchic communication structure impedes effective
> > communication by forcing users to learn an obscure markup language just
> to
> > communicate.
> >
> > I'm wondering if there have been any whitepapers on addressing these
> > problems especialy the ones about bureaucracy, reading through the news I
> > remember a lot of hay being made about a decline in Wikipedia editor
> from a
> > few years back but that seems ot have faded. Is there any hard data on
> the
> > future trajectory of the project?
> >
> > --
> > Sincerely,
> > Zubin Jain
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Subject: Digest Footer
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 168, Issue 13
> > ********************************************
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to