
Wikipedia doesn't have cancer - andrew-lucker
https://medium.com/@andrew_subarctic/wikipedia-doesnt-have-cancer-68afe829702e
======
sandworm101
Its growth is not a cancer, but there are many problems growing within
wikipedia. It is not the same as it was a decade ago. The energy within the
community of contributors is very different. It is now very difficult to break
into the club. New contributors have trouble setting up new pages, and suffer
profoundly negative experiences when those pages they do start are removed on
the basis of opaque rules. Pages about minor historical figures are removed as
stubs, while extensive articles about minor fictional characters live on. This
shift from 'knowledge' to 'quality' has changed Wikipedia. If there is a
cancer, it is the rise of powerful contributors and the disillusionment of
people who simply want to share their knowledge of a subject.

~~~
unityByFreedom
Do you have some personal experience with that? If so, in what topic areas do
you have difficulty adding content? What were your changes and why were they
rejected?

~~~
eganist
These questions are oddly specific. If I might ask, do you have any sort of
affiliation, paid or otherwise, with Wikipedia or WMF?

Not saying this to denigrate your line of questioning or to imply nefarious
activity, but it's fair to get an answer to this on the record (contrary to
the downvotes) given what you've asked.

~~~
jwilk
From the HN guidelines:

 _Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and
it makes boring reading._

~~~
eganist
I actually agree with this _as a guideline,_ but not as a rule. Since it's
listed as a guideline, I'm not complaining.

I've (anecdotally) seen a number of cases where complaints have encouraged
critical thinking on the part of voters as to whether a comment deserves a
downvote or is being downvoted simply as a byproduct of groupthink. I know
it's changed my mind on at least one occasion as it's gotten me to take into
consideration that the person making the comment is _surprised_ at the volume
of downvotes, suggesting that the person writing the comment thought the
comment would be less controversial, potentially warranting a deeper read.

I understand the desire to minimize complaints about downvotes, but like any
good guideline, sometimes an alternative is more effective.

~~~
sandworm101
Is a contrivercial comment meant to be downvoted? If controvercial comments
are discouraged HN is just another echo chamber. I only downvote things that
do not contribute. Something that is controvercial by definition contributes
at least something.

Talking about downvoted does at least expose some of the improper downvote
storm. There is a population here that actively seeks to rescue comments that
are downvoted simply for being unpopular. They should be allowed to express
thier concerns somewhere.

------
ramblerman
The author's argument basically boils down to "I like wikipedia, so I'm happy
to see it grow. It's just getting started".

Which I would agree with, but doesn't really counteract any of the points of
the original piece.

What real need is causing this rampant spending, and what should make us
believe it is going to slow down in anyway.

------
retrogradeorbit
"To make good on its dominant Encyclopedic role on the Internet, Wikimedia
needs to grow."

Does it? What does "make good on its dominant Encyclopedic role" even mean?

That's just hogwash pretending to be a sentence.

------
lamlam
I think the author makes some very valid points about how Wikipedia needs to
adapt to the new generation.

But at the same time I still do worry about what was mentioned in the original
Op Ed about one of the big companies getting their hands on Wikipedia.

So to reduce the risk to Wikipedia doesn't it make sense to split off
Wikipedia from all these new ventures? That way if anything goes south
Wikipedia still remains as is?

~~~
wapz
I read both articles and don't understand why wikipedia would _ever_ have to
sell. Would they really go bankrupt before putting in ads on the sidebar? I'm
sure they understand the only reason another company would buy them is to
monetize and they have the potential to very easily do that themselves (even
though it's against their values). The only way I see wikipedia's downfall is
if they make a _lot_ of "unethical" choices over and over (e.g. allowing
companies exclusive access to their articles, paid removal of articles,
banning users because their articles don't reflect paid advertisers' ideas,
etc)

