User:Clovermoss/Editor reflections

[Kraken]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Clov ... eflections

A story of hope and tragedy. Some really weird stuff in there.

Ripe for a structured analysis to extract the themes. How is the Wikipedia experience changing? Is it changing?

Is the story of Panini! representative? Wikipedians are still essentially born not raised. And they are captured while at school, and they write about the things they know about (video games, their school software), while kidding themselves they're writing about chairs.

Has anyone ever joined Wikipedia to fix what most people would still consider was a traditional encyclopedia article (chair). And if not, if they joined to fix their local town's article or give their favorite celebrity a page, did they ever go on to be such an editor?

As ever, a comparison of the Wikipedia article and the Britannica one suggests not.

Does the survey also bear out what seems to be the story of Wikipedia's article on the humble chair? Wherein the Wikipedia community seems to have decided that the article has essentially been finished since the summer of 2017. And certainly no IP editors have been allowed to edit it ever since.

The chair article article gets 555 page views a day. After the combined efforts of 2,717 editors and 5,078 edits, it is rated B-class.....

Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher.

I'd say the mere fact that Britannica makes sure a reader is told the chair dates back to the 3rd dynasty of ancient Egypt in the second sentence, whereas Wikipedia takes an age to mention it, and seems to think the chair is 450 years older, but doesn't back that up with a reference, suggests even this is a very generous assessment.

[Catfish Jim & spd]

I'd say the mere fact that Britannica makes sure a reader is told the chair dates back to the 3rd dynasty of ancient Egypt in the second sentence, whereas Wikipedia takes an age to mention it, and seems to think the chair is 450 years older, but doesn't back that up with a reference, suggests even this is a very generous assessment.

It's referenced to a defunct website (archived) that claims they were known from the Early Dynastic Period, which is first/second dynasties. The date of 3100 BCE is the start of the 1st dynasty. But that website cites a 2nd dynasty stela on UCL's website (again archived) link, so more like 2900 - 2700 BCE.

[Elinruby]

Maybe I should answer that. I have been ignoring it because I don't think I am typical though and don't really like crowds

[bagofworms]

So basically every editor stayed on WP because they liked contributing to the Sum of All Knowledge. Yawn. Does no one admit to sticking around for reasons that aren't "Good", like "spite" or "this is my only form of human interaction"?

[utbc]

So basically every editor stayed on WP because they liked contributing to the Sum of All Knowledge. Yawn. Does no one admit to sticking around for reasons that aren't "Good", like "spite" or "this is my only form of human interaction"?

That's self-selection for you.