Yes, "Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages" is a much better headline than "Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Improves" (when "better" is defined to be "attention grabbing").
Even the HN headline does this: "Number of Wikipedia editors steadily declining". Maybe it should be "Quality of Wikipedia articles steadily improving". Which is the cause? Which is the effect?
The article says "Indeed, Wikipedia remains enormously popular among users, with the number of Web visitors growing 20% in the 12 months ending in September, according to comScore Media Metrix." This would indicate Wikipedia itself is gaining in popularity even as the WSJ headline implies it is going downhill (precipitously, I might add).
FWIIW, I've tossed in my 2c occasionally, but only as an anonymous contributor. I don't contribute enough to qualify as an editor, but sometimes a fact is wrong, needs clarification, or some English is rough. So, is there any metrics of anonymous contributions? Are they up? Are they down?
Beyond that, the article is full of anecdotes of Things That Went Wrong (but were corrected). How is that not a success story? If nothing went wrong, it would be because nothing was contributed. For the risk adverse, the "optimal" trade-off of risk vs. change suppresses all change (this is endemic in large corporations).
Then the rest of the article rolls out the same old criticisms of lack of credentials among Wikipedia editors.
Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it
-- Chinese Proverb
Even the HN headline does this: "Number of Wikipedia editors steadily declining". Maybe it should be "Quality of Wikipedia articles steadily improving". Which is the cause? Which is the effect?
The article says "Indeed, Wikipedia remains enormously popular among users, with the number of Web visitors growing 20% in the 12 months ending in September, according to comScore Media Metrix." This would indicate Wikipedia itself is gaining in popularity even as the WSJ headline implies it is going downhill (precipitously, I might add).
FWIIW, I've tossed in my 2c occasionally, but only as an anonymous contributor. I don't contribute enough to qualify as an editor, but sometimes a fact is wrong, needs clarification, or some English is rough. So, is there any metrics of anonymous contributions? Are they up? Are they down?
Beyond that, the article is full of anecdotes of Things That Went Wrong (but were corrected). How is that not a success story? If nothing went wrong, it would be because nothing was contributed. For the risk adverse, the "optimal" trade-off of risk vs. change suppresses all change (this is endemic in large corporations).
Then the rest of the article rolls out the same old criticisms of lack of credentials among Wikipedia editors.
Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it -- Chinese Proverb