Wikipedia: charting the decline in participation

[HRIP7]

The stats for February 2014 are out.

English Wikipedia
– In the English Wikipedia, editors making more than 100 article edits per month were down to 2,976.
– This means that for four out of the last six months, there were less than 3,000 editors making more than 100 article edits.
– This figure had otherwise been consistently above 3,000 since March 2006, with a high of 4,789 in March 2007; it dropped below 3,000 for the first time in September 2013.
– New Wikipedia account registrations were below 6,000 (5,858) for only the second time since December 2005; the high-point was 13,851 in March 2007.

German Wikipedia
– In the German Wikipedia, February saw 941 editors making more than 100 article edits.
– This means that this figure has been below 1,000 for 10 out of the last 12 months (March 2013 to February 2014).
– In the year prior (March 2012 to February 2013), the figure had been above 1,000 for 11 out of 12 months.
– Otherwise, the figure had been consistently above 1,000 since October 2009, with highs of 1,183 in January 2011 and 1,179 in March 2009.
– New account registrations were at 709, compared to 940 in February 2013.

The pattern in the other major European languages seems to be much the same. The core editorship continues to shrink.

Page views for all Wikimedia projects were down 3.4% compared to February 2013. For the English Wikipedia, they were down by about 7.5%.

[Randy from Boise]

The stats for February 2014 are out.

English Wikipedia
– In the English Wikipedia, editors making more than 100 article edits per month were down to 2,976.
– This means that for four out of the last six months, there were less than 3,000 editors making more than 100 article edits.
– This figure had otherwise been consistently above 3,000 since March 2006, with a high of 4,789 in March 2007; it dropped below 3,000 for the first time in September 2013.
– New Wikipedia account registrations were below 6,000 (5,858) for only the second time since December 2005; the high-point was 13,851 in March 2007.

German Wikipedia
– In the German Wikipedia, February saw 941 editors making more than 100 article edits.
– This means that this figure has been below 1,000 for 10 out of the last 12 months (March 2013 to February 2014).
– In the year prior (March 2012 to February 2013), the figure had been above 1,000 for 11 out of 12 months.
– Otherwise, the figure had been consistently above 1,000 since October 2009, with highs of 1,183 in January 2011 and 1,179 in March 2009.
– New account registrations were at 709, compared to 940 in February 2013.

The pattern in the other major European languages seems to be much the same. The core editorship continues to shrink.

Page views for all Wikimedia projects were down 3.4% compared to February 2013. For the English Wikipedia, they were down by about 7.5%.

Virtually every single language Wikipedia showed declines in the count of so-called "Very Active Editors" in February over previous year figures. This sort of undermines the argument that it is the huge article count and high development of content at En-WP which is cause of the decline.

The answer is probably demographic: the 20-somethings who comprise the bulk of the WP Very Active Editor population are aging out of the project. But with no "real life" data available about who is editing and who is leaving, that remains an unverifiable guess...


tim

[Johnny Au]

The stats for February 2014 are out.

English Wikipedia
– In the English Wikipedia, editors making more than 100 article edits per month were down to 2,976.
– This means that for four out of the last six months, there were less than 3,000 editors making more than 100 article edits.
– This figure had otherwise been consistently above 3,000 since March 2006, with a high of 4,789 in March 2007; it dropped below 3,000 for the first time in September 2013.
– New Wikipedia account registrations were below 6,000 (5,858) for only the second time since December 2005; the high-point was 13,851 in March 2007.

German Wikipedia
– In the German Wikipedia, February saw 941 editors making more than 100 article edits.
– This means that this figure has been below 1,000 for 10 out of the last 12 months (March 2013 to February 2014).
– In the year prior (March 2012 to February 2013), the figure had been above 1,000 for 11 out of 12 months.
– Otherwise, the figure had been consistently above 1,000 since October 2009, with highs of 1,183 in January 2011 and 1,179 in March 2009.
– New account registrations were at 709, compared to 940 in February 2013.

The pattern in the other major European languages seems to be much the same. The core editorship continues to shrink.

Page views for all Wikimedia projects were down 3.4% compared to February 2013. For the English Wikipedia, they were down by about 7.5%.

Virtually every single language Wikipedia showed declines in the count of so-called "Very Active Editors" in February over previous year figures. This sort of undermines the argument that it is the huge article count and high development of content at En-WP which is cause of the decline.

The answer is probably demographic: the 20-somethings who comprise the bulk of the WP Very Active Editor population are aging out of the project. But with no "real life" data available about who is editing and who is leaving, that remains an unverifiable guess...


tim

I had been editing Wikipedia since I was 18 (I first registered my account back in December 2006) and still among the top 2150 editors.

[eagle]

I had been editing Wikipedia since I was 18 (I first registered my account back in December 2006) and still among the top 2150 editors.

I hope that you have found something more meaningful to do with your life and now realize that being 2150th in edit counts is not a badge of honor.

My theory is that there was a group that took pride in mastering the wikimarkup language and the weird rules and policies. Once they felt they were part of the inside crowd, they had incentive to keep on editing. If a good visual editor is ever implemented, literally anyone will be able to edit and many of the old guard will move onto something else. People will come and edit the one or two articles that interest them and move on. Perhaps robots will pick up most of the wikignome work.

[Kumioko]

One of the main things driving off editors in Wikipedia are the admins. Too many admins think its their responsibility to "find" problems with editors. They dig and dig until they find the editor has violated some often obscure policy, or twist it their own interpretation, then they ban them, block them or constantly harass them, "broadly construed". The admins in Wikipedia (and Germany has a similar problem) point blank, are the problem with the increasingly hostile and toxic editing environment on Wikipedia. If you look at the top editors list, a large number have been targeted and eliminated by admins for various reasons. They are systematically getting rid of the top editors who aren't admins and even some that are.

For what its worth I was about 10th on the list of top editors with about 450, 000 edits. I had several months were I averaged more than a thousand edits a day. Yet I was tossed out for criticizing the corrupt admin culture in Wikipedia. Hundreds or thousands of editors can recite their own similar stories. Run-ins with one or more admins with big ego's that are allowed to bully editors at the expense of the project.

I also think this site and other related stories are helping to reduce the numbers too by getting the word out about all the corruption behind the project. Keep up the good work. Make em' squeel!

[Johnny Au]

I actually control how often I edit. I edit approximately 10 times a day and maintain my monthly edits to consist of at least 68% articles.

Even then, I keep rising up through the edit counts rather quickly.

Most of my edits involve bypassing redirects, adding commas, adding links, and such, in other words, WikiGnome-type edits.

[Stierlitz]

(Probably off topic...)

Now that Wikipedia is beginning to fall apart, the resemblances between it and modern Scientology are becoming more and more obvious.

Jimmy Donal Wales vs. Lafayette Ronald Hubbard

• Both men considered as "source" within each group
• Both have cults of personality
• Hubbard a sci-fi writer who made a sci-fi religion
• Jimbo a computer guy who built an online encyclopedia
• Both have suppressed cofounders/important assistants
• Larry Sanger was the Leon Trotsky of Wikipedia
• Volney Mathison invented the E-meter; stolen away by Hubbard
• Son "Nibs" Hubbard (Ronald DeWolf) right hand man in 1950s, gone by 1962
• A History of Man written by Hubbard using DeWolf's speed-trip rantings
• Meanwhile, Jimbo only sounds delusional
• Both men slightly ahead of their time, later dated by succeeding events

Wikipedia vs. Scientology

• One steals your time; the other, your money
• Both groups speak in jargon
• Both groups try to hide the skeletons, to no avail
• Both groups use the young for nefarious purposes
• Both suffer from crazy rules, but only Scientology has leader who slaps people (David Miscavage)
• Culture in both groups poisoned by paranoia
• Philosophical basis of both groups utopian
• Scientology believes in the perfectibility of humans
• Wikipedia believes all knowledge can be stored online
• Both groups use free labor
• Exiles from both groups meet on specialized Internet message boards
• Scientology wastes money running 46-year-old cruise liner
• Wikipedia wants to waste money printing itself as encyclopedia set

Edited because I did not know Master Wales was born "Jimmy."

[Kumioko]

You forgot one: Both organizations are a joke to the majority of the population!

[eagle]

One steals your time; the other, your money

Perhaps you have forgotten the annual banner ads soliciting donations for the WMF. The fundraising campaigns have also sought out contributions from editors as well as the general public. I would say that both organizations burn through both your time and your money.

[Stierlitz]

One steals your time; the other, your money

Perhaps you have forgotten the annual banner ads soliciting donations for the WMF. The fundraising campaigns have also sought out contributions from editors as well as the general public. I would say that both organizations burn through both your time and your money.

Most people are free riders on the Internet; I've never paid Wikipedia a dime. Scientology, on the other hand, is a relentless squeeze because it relies on a captive audience and it makes sure that those people can afford to be bilked.

[Jim]

One steals your time; the other, your money

Perhaps you have forgotten the annual banner ads soliciting donations for the WMF. The fundraising campaigns have also sought out contributions from editors as well as the general public. I would say that both organizations burn through both your time and your money.

Most people are free riders on the Internet; I've never paid Wikipedia a dime. Scientology, on the other hand, is a relentless squeeze because it relies on a captive audience and it makes sure that those people can afford to be bilked.

Tell us about UFOs. Start a thread. You have me intrigued, now that you've mentioned it so often. I've often wondered, myself.

[Ca$hBag]

The stats for February 2014 are out.

English Wikipedia
– In the English Wikipedia, editors making more than 100 article edits per month were down to 2,976.
– This means that for four out of the last six months, there were less than 3,000 editors making more than 100 article edits.
– This figure had otherwise been consistently above 3,000 since March 2006, with a high of 4,789 in March 2007; it dropped below 3,000 for the first time in September 2013.
– New Wikipedia account registrations were below 6,000 (5,858) for only the second time since December 2005; the high-point was 13,851 in March 2007.

Did you find out anything about the traffic stats of 2014? And thanks very much for sharing the data, I've been wondering about 2014 stats.

[Kumioko]

The stats for February 2014 are out.

English Wikipedia
– In the English Wikipedia, editors making more than 100 article edits per month were down to 2,976.
– This means that for four out of the last six months, there were less than 3,000 editors making more than 100 article edits.
– This figure had otherwise been consistently above 3,000 since March 2006, with a high of 4,789 in March 2007; it dropped below 3,000 for the first time in September 2013.
– New Wikipedia account registrations were below 6,000 (5,858) for only the second time since December 2005; the high-point was 13,851 in March 2007.

Did you find out anything about the traffic stats of 2014? And thanks very much for sharing the data, I've been wondering about 2014 stats.

All I can say to those stats is...good. Because Wikipedia isn't going to change anything until it becomes even more clear to those who aren't ignoring it, that the project is spining into an abyss. The Admins, Arbcom and the WMF can continue to ignore the problems if they want and all the half finished crappy software in the world like Visual Editor is not going to fix it. Its a cultural problem with how editors are treated on the project. As long as Admins are allowed to treat editors like crap with impunity, the project will continue to decline.

[Peter Damian]

[thekohser]

Did you find out anything about the traffic stats of 2014? And thanks very much for sharing the data, I've been wondering about 2014 stats.

You can look up estimated traffic stats on Compete.com, Alexa.com, and Quantcast.com. All of them show en.wikipedia.org roughly holding steady in 2014 over 2013 statistics. There is a seasonal drop in traffic in the summer, when schools are out of session and when MyWikiBiz goes on holiday.

[Peter Damian]

Wikipedia:List of administrators

There are 1,407 (as of now) administrator accounts (active and otherwise), 598 of them active (as of 2014-04-24). Activity is defined as 30 or more edits during the last two months.

First time below 600.

[Kumioko]

Wikipedia:List of administrators

There are 1,407 (as of now) administrator accounts (active and otherwise), 598 of them active (as of 2014-04-24). Activity is defined as 30 or more edits during the last two months.

First time below 600.

And if things don't change dramatically, they will be somewhere around 1380 admins by July, with very few new admins getting the tools and an increasing number of editors and admins either walking away or getting banned. Pretty soon the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia is going to say it "was" an encyclopedia anyone can edit! And actually I wouldn't consider 30 edits in 2 months to be active. That's pretty inactive to me. When you factor those that do 30 a week or more your probably down to 100 or less and most of those are the ones that are driving the rest away.

[EricBarbour]

[Randy from Boise]

Well, I have a hunch that the fit of that line may not prove to be so good in the out years...

RfB

[EricBarbour]

Well, I have a hunch that the fit of that line may not prove to be so good in the out years...

Is that your way of saying "I haven't got anything better"?

[TungstenCarbide]

Well, I have a hunch that the fit of that line may not prove to be so good in the out years...

Is that your way of saying "I haven't got anything better"?

As WP loses more editors it also loses critical mass, accelerating its decline near the end, if left to its own devices. Of course there are other forces at play here. WP is worth billions, it's chock full of episode lists of crappy TV shows, and porn star reviews. People love that shit. So editor participation isn't necessarily coupled with popularity after certain content is established. Then there's the type of edits being made-- a thousand bot assisted category changes are worth maybe one significant content addition. Then there's Google Juice and its evil short-circuiting of natural competition. So while the chart shows a linear editor decline at the moment, external forces make a huge impact. Given WP's value, outside forces will profit from it as opportunities arise. If I were a Google competitor, I'd see this decline as an opportunity.

[Clipperton]

If I were a Google competitor, I'd see this decline as an opportunity.

Critics should see it as an opportunity too. Inevitably 'wikipedia editor decline' starts to get more headlines. Spread fear and propaganda: what happens to the quality of content once there are fewer patrollers? You can't trust Wikipedia any more ('any more' is ironic but remember who you're talking to).

What is google's incentive to return wikipedia at the top of search results - there are no ads on the other side of that referral. It could be a really slippery slope once the tumbleweed gets rolling. When google shifts, and arguably they're already trying to 'in-house' some of the presentation of factoids that are the real reason anyone visits[1], things will get interesting.

[1] Which is to say 'fuck articles' ('content') - you think anyone cares about good prose explanation? Probably not 1 in 10 site hits are looking for prose overviews. No, they're looking for a factoid, for which reason Wikipedia as in http://en.wikipedia.org does not even need to be visited in many cases. In turn all part of the trivia/ADD/tiny-screen-as-mediator-of-'learning' culture.

[EricBarbour]

None of you have seen my chart for estimated decline in the number of active administrators yet....

[Kumioko]

IMO there are a lot of other factors working in conjunctions with a simple attrition chart as stated by other above. I think we are going to see a large spike in declines over the next couple years but at a point its going to level off. The problem is at the point were it levels off, we are likely to see that due to a lot of POV pushers, advertisers and bullies who recognize and take advantage of the lack of editors to adequately police the site and keep things neutral. In many ways that is already occurring. In addition to that, new changes such as visual editor and flow are going to attract some new editors and drive off the old ones. Its hard to tell which one will be a bigger group but the signs are there already that these things do not attract nearly enough people to fill the void of those who leave. Meanwhile, the environment gets more toxic and drive off even more, edits decline and more pages are protected so only admins can edit them but there are too few admins to keep up with the workload. The future is going to be very very ugly. I'm guessing by 2016 at the latest Wikipedia is going to get to a point of irreversible failure. It might already be too late now

[Peter Damian]

On a related subject, I notice two longer-serving editors who have not been around for a while. The first is Kudpung (T-C-L), administrator and a loyal servant and defender of the adminstration for many years. If you say ‘Wikipedian’ then you mean him. He has shown signs of doubt in recent months, and has not edited since the beginning of March.

The second is the beloved Giano (T-C-L). Not edited since April 4. Giano always leaves some kind of message when taking a break, or when ‘retiring’. Not so.

There could be other explanations.

[neved]

Then there's a wikipediot Mark Arsten (T-C-L), the most faithful sidekick of the dirtiest Wikipedia's jerk, and as indecent as his handler is. Mark is a young man who has no payed job, and who was editing for 14 -16 hours every day probably from his parents basement . Then one night on February 27 Mark probably suddenly realized that going on like that is not healthy for him, and left with no notice. He re-appeared one more time to support the third RFA of Hahc21. Then wearing his new admin's t-short Hahc21 posted a notice to Mark's talk. The notice states:

Important notice

Mark Arsten is taking an indefinite break from Wikipedia for personal reasons. As such, he would wish not to be contacted at this talk page unless it's an emergency, in which case any editor can feel free to contact me instead. Until further notice, Mark is not available to respond to any requests, especially if they involve use of administrator tools (you can ask me for that too).

On behalf of Mark, → Call me Hahc21 02:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course Mark Arsten is not Mark's first account. He used to have at least one more that he suddenly dropped with no reason and with no notice just to open a new one on the very same day. So I would not be surprised if Mark is still editing under a new account. Go figure what wikipediots are doing.

[Jim]

Then there's a wikipediot Mark Arsten (T-C-L), the most faithful sidekick of the dirtiest Wikipedia's jerk, and as indecent as his handler is. Mark is a young man who has no payed job, and who was editing for 14 -16 hours every day probably from his parents basement . Then one night on February 27 Mark probably suddenly realized that going on like that is not healthy for him, and left with no notice. He re-appeared one more time to support the third RFA of Hahc21. Then wearing his new admin's t-short Hahc21 posted a notice to Mark's talk. The notice states:

Important notice

Mark Arsten is taking an indefinite break from Wikipedia for personal reasons. As such, he would wish not to be contacted at this talk page unless it's an emergency, in which case any editor can feel free to contact me instead. Until further notice, Mark is not available to respond to any requests, especially if they involve use of administrator tools (you can ask me for that too).

On behalf of Mark, → Call me Hahc21 02:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course Mark Arsten is not Mark's first account. He used to have at least one more that he suddenly dropped with no reason and with no notice just to open a new one on the very same day. So I would not be surprised if Mark is still editing under a new account. Go figure what wikipediots are doing.

Yeah, Hahc21 is an item, the like of which we've often, and tediously seen before.
His admin tenure will explode in guaranteed amusement at some idiot move he makes any time in the next couple of years, based on some halfwit IRC meeting with his playground friends, but explode it will. (maybe we need one of Vig's 'pools' for a date). WikiKindergartenAdminz->Dumb 'r' us.

I won't personally wear a t-short - just too much beer belly for that... I know several girls who should consider that approach to fashion too, yet don't...

[neved]

BTW I was wondering where is Delicious carbuncle (T-C-L). I am kind of missing his "Commons is broken" threads at Jimbo's talk.

[Jim]

BTW I was wondering where is Delicious carbuncle (T-C-L). I am kind of missing his "Commons is broken" threads at Jimbo's talk.

They fixed it. Pricasso's video got deleted for a while. Russavia isn't a bureaucrat any more, just a sysop with delete/undelete power. Children can only usually upload/rule on porn now. Fae's admin request was denied. Commons is fine now, just ask them. No problems left. Did you miss the memo?

[Hex]

Well, I have a hunch that the fit of that line may not prove to be so good in the out years...

Is that your way of saying "I haven't got anything better"?

More like his way of saying "prove it". It could well turn out to be more of a "long tail" distribution.

[neved]

BTW I was wondering where is Delicious carbuncle (T-C-L). I am kind of missing his "Commons is broken" threads at Jimbo's talk.

They fixed it. Pricasso's video got deleted for a while. Russavia isn't a bureaucrat any more, just a sysop with delete/undelete power. Children can only usually upload/rule on porn now. Fae's admin request was denied. Commons is fine now, just ask them. No problems left. Did you miss the memo?

"They fixed it?"
Doesn't the search for "electric toothbrush" still returns that not safe for work image?

Isn't that idiot Mattbuck who writes something like that

That it's a toothbrush is rather important to the image, so no it should not just be under female masturbation. As for deletion, iirc it survived several DRs on the grounds that improvised vibrators are a common thing. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

is still an admin?

Didn't the same Mattbuck apologize to the aforementioned sex offender for him being blocked from Commons by a "witch-hunt mentality" and is still an admin?

Aren't those dirty antisemitic cartoons still missing category "antisemitic pictures" ?

And so on, and so on...

Commons cannot be fixed. The only way to fix Commons is to close it for good.

[Kumioko]

BTW I was wondering where is Delicious carbuncle (T-C-L). I am kind of missing his "Commons is broken" threads at Jimbo's talk.

They fixed it. Pricasso's video got deleted for a while. Russavia isn't a bureaucrat any more, just a sysop with delete/undelete power. Children can only usually upload/rule on porn now. Fae's admin request was denied. Commons is fine now, just ask them. No problems left. Did you miss the memo?

"They fixed it?"
Doesn't the search for "electric toothbrush" still returns that not safe for work image?

Isn't that idiot Mattbuck who writes something like that

That it's a toothbrush is rather important to the image, so no it should not just be under female masturbation. As for deletion, iirc it survived several DRs on the grounds that improvised vibrators are a common thing. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

is still an admin?

Didn't the same Mattbuck apologize to the aforementioned sex offender for him being blocked from Commons by a "witch-hunt mentality" and is still an admin?

Aren't those dirty antisemitic cartoons still missing category "antisemitic pictures" ?

And so on, and so on...

Commons cannot be fixed. The only way to fix Commons is to close it for good.

I think commons can be fixed but it suffers from the same problems as Wikipedia. They lack leadership or someone with the good sense to stop the problem. Maybe they need an Arbcom, we could send Brad to help!

[neved]

Commons cannot be fixed. The only way to fix Commons is to close it for good.
I think commons can be fixed but it suffers from the same problems as Wikipedia. They lack leadership or someone with the good sense to stop the problem. Maybe they need an Arbcom, we could send Brad to help!

Assuming your post was not just for sarcasm, do you really believe English wikipedia has a leadership? The only body that could have provided a real leadership would have been a committee of independent, paid, named professionals, preferably the ones who are emotionally stable (see edit summary), and the ones who think before they speak, and not the other way around. It is never going to happen on any site that belongs to the wmf.

[Poetlister]

Well, I have a hunch that the fit of that line may not prove to be so good in the out years...

Is that your way of saying "I haven't got anything better"?

Now, if I wanted to be one of those ponderous scientific people, and `let on' to prove what had occurred in the remote past by what had occurred in a given time in the recent past, or what will occur in the far future by what has occurred in late years, what an opportunity is here! Geology never had such a chance, nor such exact data to argue from! Nor `development of species', either! Glacial epochs are great things, but they are vague--vague. Please observe. In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. This is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upward of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

- Mark Twain

[Kumioko]

Commons cannot be fixed. The only way to fix Commons is to close it for good.
I think commons can be fixed but it suffers from the same problems as Wikipedia. They lack leadership or someone with the good sense to stop the problem. Maybe they need an Arbcom, we could send Brad to help!

Assuming your post was not just for sarcasm, do you really believe English wikipedia has a leadership? The only body that could have provided a real leadership would have been a committee of independent, paid, named professionals. It is never going to happen on any site that belongs to the wmf.

Actually they are both more or less right. I do not think it can be fixed because they are in the same predicament as Wikipedia. No one has the power or is willing to make the decision to make the changes necessary to allow them to survive. If someone were able to take action though they could be recovered but that is not going to happen until they are both pushed to the brink of uselessness. So on that note I agree that neither is likely to be fixed and both will eventually succumb to their own lack of leadership. Could they be fixed? Certainly. Will they be? Nope. Not as long as people are willing to keep editing and not until they get so bad that the WMF is forced to take action for either legal reasons or survival.

[Johnny Au]

I make approximately 10 edits a day for the past few years, and I am projected to be among the top 2000 editors in edit count, the majority my edits are considered minor changes and they are all Toronto-related (and WP:CSB-related).

If I made 20 edits a day, I would easily be in the top 1000.

[EricBarbour]

[Kumioko]

I make approximately 10 edits a day for the past few years, and I am projected to be among the top 2000 editors in edit count, the majority my edits are considered minor changes and they are all Toronto-related (and WP:CSB-related).

If I made 20 edits a day, I would easily be in the top 1000.

I was about #15 when I was banned. I had something like 480, 000 edits total since I started.

[Kumioko]

I'm not sure if this chart is accurate. Currently there are about 1400 admins, of that about 600 are "active" because they have done 30 edits in the last 60 days. According to this chart they will drop below 500 in the 2015-16 timeframe but assuming its only talking about active admins, I think that will happen sooner. There has been a massive exodus of admins from the site of the last year or so and very few new admins being created. Plus they are adding more protections thereby making it harder to edit. So I think we are looking at sometime at the end of 2014 and maybe sooner when it falls below 500. I guess time will tell.

[EricBarbour]

I'm not sure if this chart is accurate. Currently there are about 1400 admins, of that about 600 are "active" because they have done 30 edits in the last 60 days. According to this chart they will drop below 500 in the 2015-16 timeframe but assuming its only talking about active admins, I think that will happen sooner. There has been a massive exodus of admins from the site of the last year or so and very few new admins being created. Plus they are adding more protections thereby making it harder to edit. So I think we are looking at sometime at the end of 2014 and maybe sooner when it falls below 500. I guess time will tell.

It's not intended to be "accurate", it merely shows the general trend. You could easily be right, that it will drop off more quickly. No way to predict, given the utterly insane and erratic "governance" the place enjoys.

I suspect that most likely, once enough patrollers quit, Wikipedia content will be buried under a wave of vandalism and spam. Unless the last few admins lock the database. Whereupon the "project that will never be finished" would find itself "finished", forcibly. Millions of people would continue to use it to look up info, much as DMOZ is still being used regularly despite having become almost dead. But the "magic" would be gone, and lots of people would know it.

[Randy from Boise]

Well, I have a hunch that the fit of that line may not prove to be so good in the out years...

Is that your way of saying "I haven't got anything better"?

Projecting a trend indefinitely into the future is not rational. The curve will, of course, flatten out.

RfB

[Johnny Au]

It would be interesting if Wikipedia suffered the same fate as MySpace.

[Vigilant]

Well, I have a hunch that the fit of that line may not prove to be so good in the out years...

Is that your way of saying "I haven't got anything better"?

Projecting a trend indefinitely into the future is not rational. The curve will, of course, flatten out.

RfB

Of course?!?!

This curve will crash to near zero when it hits an inflection point.

[TungstenCarbide]

Well, I have a hunch that the fit of that line may not prove to be so good in the out years...

Is that your way of saying "I haven't got anything better"?

Projecting a trend indefinitely into the future is not rational. The curve will, of course, flatten out.

RfB

Of course?!?!

This curve will crash to near zero when it hits an inflection point.

Most likely scenario; something comes along to replace Wikipedia, replicating it's information and providing a place where editors would rather be, in the next five to ten years. Myspace-> Facebook went a little faster, but web 2.0 is maturing (if that's the right word).

[Jim]

BTW I was wondering where is Delicious carbuncle (T-C-L). I am kind of missing his "Commons is broken" threads at Jimbo's talk.

They fixed it. Pricasso's video got deleted for a while. Russavia isn't a bureaucrat any more, just a sysop with delete/undelete power. Children can only usually upload/rule on porn now. Fae's admin request was denied. Commons is fine now, just ask them. No problems left. Did you miss the memo?

"They fixed it?"
...
Isn't that idiot Mattbuck ... still an admin?

...
And so on, and so on...

Commons cannot be fixed. The only way to fix Commons is to close it for good.

sarcasm
ˈsɑːkaz(ə)m
noun
1.
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
"she didn't like the note of sarcasm in his voice"
synonyms: derision, mockery, ridicule, satire, irony, scorn, sneering, scoffing, gibing, taunting;trenchancy, mordancy, acerbity; rarecausticity, mordacity
"his voice was heavy with sarcasm"

[Johnny Au]

Google and Facebook can establish Wikipedia alternatives, except with less privacy and more advertising of course.

[enwikibadscience]

It would be interesting if Wikipedia suffered the same fate as MySpace.

It would be good or the reader.

[Johnny Au]

It would be interesting if Wikipedia suffered the same fate as MySpace.

It would be good or the reader.

True.

Encyclopaedia Britannica is open to peer-reviewed editing for those who do research with credibility.

[everyking]

The stats for February 2014 are out.

English Wikipedia
– In the English Wikipedia, editors making more than 100 article edits per month were down to 2,976.
– This means that for four out of the last six months, there were less than 3,000 editors making more than 100 article edits.
– This figure had otherwise been consistently above 3,000 since March 2006, with a high of 4,789 in March 2007; it dropped below 3,000 for the first time in September 2013.
– New Wikipedia account registrations were below 6,000 (5,858) for only the second time since December 2005; the high-point was 13,851 in March 2007.

German Wikipedia
– In the German Wikipedia, February saw 941 editors making more than 100 article edits.
– This means that this figure has been below 1,000 for 10 out of the last 12 months (March 2013 to February 2014).
– In the year prior (March 2012 to February 2013), the figure had been above 1,000 for 11 out of 12 months.
– Otherwise, the figure had been consistently above 1,000 since October 2009, with highs of 1,183 in January 2011 and 1,179 in March 2009.
– New account registrations were at 709, compared to 940 in February 2013.

The pattern in the other major European languages seems to be much the same. The core editorship continues to shrink.

Page views for all Wikimedia projects were down 3.4% compared to February 2013. For the English Wikipedia, they were down by about 7.5%.

Virtually every single language Wikipedia showed declines in the count of so-called "Very Active Editors" in February over previous year figures. This sort of undermines the argument that it is the huge article count and high development of content at En-WP which is cause of the decline.

The answer is probably demographic: the 20-somethings who comprise the bulk of the WP Very Active Editor population are aging out of the project. But with no "real life" data available about who is editing and who is leaving, that remains an unverifiable guess...


tim

But they would then be replaced by new people representing the same demographic group, the next generation, right? So that can't be the fundamental problem. Nor is it a high article count that's causing the decline. WP has simply banned too many people and made its editing environment too unpleasant. Right now, only a very, very small number are willing to participate, at a highly active level, under such circumstances, and most of those people end up getting banned after a while. The only solution is to undo the abusive blocks, demote the abusive admins, and make an active effort to change the way volunteers are treated. We have to broaden the number of people willing to participate, keep the ones currently around, and bring back the ones who were lost.

[lilburne]

How do you deal with the background meme that WP is not a cool place, that its articles are by and large pants, and that its editors are every now and then marched to the top of hill at the bequest of mega corporations, and are daily dragooned into working unpaid for tax avoiding quasi-criminal organizations?