• Silverseren@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think long-term retention is more the problem. There’s plenty of new editors that show up to do something, but they don’t care about being an editor on broader subjects long-term.

      There’s attempts to retain interest more through things like editathons on specific topics, such as with the Women in Red group, that have seen a decent amount of success.

      • FaceDeer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        1 year ago

        I used to be an editor, and an admin. Quite a prolific one, in fact. I eventually quit (not really “officially”, I just gradually ran down my frequency of editing until I eventually realized I just wasn’t any more) because editing Wikipedia was no longer fun. And as far as I could tell, that was deliberate and as-designed.

        Rules, rules, rules. No articles on quirky topics for the sake of quirky topics. Strict limits on pop culture. Articles for Deletion became a death sentence, arguing felt like trying to be a lawyer in a court that had already ruled against you and was just making things official. Just a tiring slog to produce something I wasn’t terribly interested in any more.

        Not really sure what the solution is, if there even is one. Wikipedia seems to be what it wants to be, now. I am a bit saddened because what it used to be was fun, but I’ve moved on. I’m glad Wikipedia still exists and has been useful to a great many people over the years.

        • Silverseren@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean, is it surprising that a project aimed at becoming a proper encyclopedia would become stricter on content and raise the standards over time?

          Which makes complete sense for pop culture stuff and especially things like Trivia sections that try to be added to a bunch of articles, adding things in like appearances of a historical subject in any and every manga that features them and any TV episode. That’s not really something that’s needed.

          • FaceDeer@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            Nope, not surprising, which is why I figure it’s as-designed.

            That’s not really something that’s needed.

            Well, is it? If the problem is that no new editors are joining then perhaps something that new editors would enjoy working on is needed.

            If Wikipedia is fine with continuing to get greyer and greyer, ossifying into a “proper” and “serious” encyclopedia, then that’s fine I guess. If new blood is needed, on the other hand, maybe look at things that would attract it and consider that as something that’s needed.

            It’s not like the pay can be increased.

            • Aatube@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Wikipedia is already a proper encyclopedia, as has been the case six years ago. Pop culture sections are still allowed, they’re just restricted to reliably sourced entries to prevent being disproportionally long and having shaky entries that are a stretch

              • FaceDeer@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes, those are all things I said in my comment already. I think they are the main reason for the lack of new blood.

                If you don’t think the lack of new blood is a problem, then that’s all fine. If the lack of new blood is a problem, then maybe those things need to be reevaluated.