Calling all amateurs. Your expertise is needed.
By Emily on December 2nd, 2009 in General Thoughts |
On November 24th, a story in the New York Times Magazine used Wikipedia as a source – a first for them. A bit more unexpected—at least 100 judicial rulings have relied on Wikipedia for research. Despite its rise as a reliable source for, well, almost anything, there have been some rumors of a Wikipedia slow down.
It seems that a good number of the know-it-some and know-it-alls have decided to take a break from shedding light. One study claims that in the first three months of 2009, the number approaches 49,000. Maybe they have nothing left to contribute or maybe it’s just the nature of the beast.
Whatever the reason for said “slow down”, Co-founder Jimmy Wales assures everyone (Wikipedia is the fifth most popular website in the entire world, so yes, he’s speaking to “everyone”) that the number of editors has merely stabilized. The Wikipedia numbers look a little less shocking on my imaginary graph. They estimate the number of Wikipedians, those that contribute and edit more than a few times a month, has dropped by little over 1,500. Viewership is still on the rise.
Obviously, the free encyclopedia - that anyone can edit - remains popular among viewers. It’s speculated that the voluntary contributors are being turned off by “the plethora of rules Wikipedia has adopted to bring order to its unruly universe — particularly to reduce infighting among contributors about write-ups of controversial subjects and polarizing figures.”
In an online world where you can explore any subject with a blog or tweet, and freely write on walls without being accused of vandalism—it’s no wonder that a site giving a hint of credibility to our tidbits of knowledge attracted so many volunteers.
If Wikipedia aims to be “the sum of all human knowledge” it’s doing a pretty good job. Is that Wiki tab on your browser the shortcut to omniscience? Perhaps.