Post AqVsHxcEcFPZHvllw0 by JMarkOckerbloom@mastodon.social
(DIR) More posts by JMarkOckerbloom@mastodon.social
(DIR) Post #AqVsHsIuMfysoXglcG by JMarkOckerbloom@mastodon.social
2024-12-25T18:41:27Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
More than funds, what Wikipedia really needs is more good editors. The number of people who regularly edit articles in English Wikipedia hasn't grown substantially in years, while the number of articles has, and editor demographics remains skewed. The foundation itself largely stays away from editing, leaving it to volunteers. While articles that get a lot of attention are often good, it's not hard to find ones with biased and promotional content in less-visited topics, and in other languages.
(DIR) Post #AqVsHxcEcFPZHvllw0 by JMarkOckerbloom@mastodon.social
2024-12-26T17:59:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
It's clear from the many replies to yesterday's post that lots of people have tried to edit Wikipedia but been put off by how admins and other editors treat them.Some persist. Some are 'old guard' that patrol their own turf but repel newcomers. Some have had some success banding together in projects like Women in Red and Wiki Edu. Some I know are paid to edit by nonprofits (respecting WP rules for that, e.g. disclosing who pays them and avoiding conflict of interest edits). But... (1/2)
(DIR) Post #AqVsI2OaqOTE74QRrk by JMarkOckerbloom@mastodon.social
2024-12-26T17:59:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
...there aren't that many of them. Those who persist in editing in the spirit of Wikipedia's mission have had some success, including defending against small-scale bad actors, but by a process that also pushes out good actors.The big risk I see for WP is *large*-scale bad actors (like those who fund dark money superPACs and buy and ruin social media sites) now seeing it as a tempting target. *They* can afford to motivate allied editors to persist, and eventually overwhelm the old guard. (2/2)