Wikipedia is pretty much dead right now. There is less than a 1000 active editors left and most of them are either on breaks or retiring, many have even died after having wasted their lives on Wikipedia. They have pretty much blocked every vpn and mobile network, so there is less vandalism to revert so editors get bored and leave faster. There has been so little new administrator recruitment that there will be a staff shortage at the end of the year when they fire all the inactive ones. Also there is an arbitration case which looks like it might ban a lot of the active articles for deletion editors, making Wikipedia even harder to maintain. Wikipedia is getting really out of date as editors forget about it, and references are lost to bitrot.
The only thing keeping Wikipedia going is the SEO advantage it has and people paid to edit for an agenda. I previously predicted Wikipedia would die in 2023, but it looks like it is dead already. The cherry on top is that there is a new hoax discovered about fake Russian history on the Chinese Wikipedia. I woudn't even use Wikipedia for uncontroversial facts, that's what textbooks are for.
>fake Russian history on the Chinese Wikipedia both of them are known for being stupid and lying about everything so whats your point
Jose Price
I used to be sporadically active during college, creating stubs and small articles in my language,but definitely gave up about three years ago after a run-in with a stubborn loser of a mod. People are not exaggerating, those people are insufferable morons, Anyway, do not give money to Wikipedia.
Jack Scott
Sounds like you met a delitionist. They scare editors away and delete small articles. They sacrifice knowledge for the sake of polishing Wikipedia's reputation.
>references are lost to bitrot. Most of it seems to be covered by bots who archive the refs. At least these days I rarely come across complete 404s. >There has been so little new administrator recruitment that there will be a staff shortage at the end of the year when they fire all the inactive ones. I think I've read about this even on WP - the process to become an admin is so difficult there's too few people interested at all.
Unrelated to the topic, I've started editing recently again after a long time (not that I was terribly active back in the day either). I noticed a failed academic who has made a ton of accounts and articles about himself on different language WPs, also inserting references to himself in related topics. Do you think this would be worthy of reporting? The faggot is shitting up my area of interest with the self-promotion.
Wyatt Powell
>Do you think this would be worthy of reporting? Yes.
Gabriel Ortiz
actually I asked the wrong question, it should be - would the mods ban him?
I have no idea desu. I've heard of someone getting banned for similar behavior in the past but I can't remember who it was anymore.
Justin Wilson
>Wikipedia editors vanishing >Apache greybeards retiring I'm scared you guys. I want the cool Internet back, not more FAGMAN shit. At this point I feel nothing short of a ban of all online advertisement can save the Internet culture.
Eli Perry
>fake Russian history on the Chinese Wikipedia. Source? Is it actually fake or is it just some (((westerner))) sperging out about the truth?
Julian Nelson
>internet culture go outside
Wyatt Phillips
No, of course a chink knows Russian history better than Russians.
Chase Ward
Given how Russia and China are allies, I wouldn't be surprised if it's sabotage by a false flagger.
Aiden Sullivan
The barriers to creating and editing articles are too high, so hardly anyone actually takes the time to add or edit articles; but then again, if there are no barriers, anybody can just go write whatever they want. It's a difficult problem.
If you ask me, Wikipedia should contact Elon Musk and ask him for money (I'm sure he'd agree to some kind of arrangement, that's kind of his thing). They should then ban every single current mod of Wikipedia, go through all of them and check their modding decisions, then decide which ones are biased and which are actually objective and worth keeping around. It likely wouldn't take too long; like OP said, there's only like 1000 active editors, and far less mods than that. When everything is said and done, unban the objective mods, and use the money to hire people to do nothing but fact check and edit Wikipedia for eight hours a day at minimum wage. Once the impoverished NEETs smell the blood in the water, the number of editors will skyrocket.
With the infusion of fresh new editors, they can then turn their attention to creating a more sustainable business model which does not require begging for money from the general public. The only concern is finding ads that aren't political, and have no factual problems with them. The left side bar is empty underneath all the links, so it's a perfect spot to put some tasteful, unobtrusive ads (no flashing shit, no videos, no audio, etc.) to help generate revenue. Wikipedia has done exceptionally well for a volunteer site, but at this point, it's grown too large for the volunteer/donation model. The pleas for help have gotten less and less palatable over the years; it was fine the first couple of times they did it, but the more often they have donation drives, the less likely it is that people are going to donate.
Angel Garcia
That's not what anyone said.
Justin Young
Of course, your words don't mean anything because there's no brain and no thought behind them.
You would be surprised if you literally just googled it instead of spouting retarded theories like the guy above.
Oliver Murphy
Retard, there's no need to suck Elon Musk's balls to make Wikipedia better. They make millions of dollars a year through donations, a tiny fraction of which goes to server hosting costs, i.e. the only necessary expense. The rest goes towards grants or salaries for bullshit jobs. They beg for money because it works and keeps their salaries up.
