Speaking of Britannica and online encyclopedias, data straight from Wikipedia suggests that the web 2.0 paragon may be peaking.
The number of new Wikipedians is no longer growing at the same phenomenal rate exhibited in 2006. Similarly, the number of active editors appears to be in decline, especially if one examines the data across all of the various languages. And, after incredible growth in the number of English language articles in 2006, 2007 no longer looks as buoyant. After peaking in September 2006 — a month where Wikipedians created over 70,000 new articles — the number of new articles each month has been steadily declining so that in May 2007 there were “only” 48,000 new ones.
SO, has the novelty worn off? Or is the vast realm of encyclopedic topics now reaching exhaustion?
Perhaps edit wars are driving otherwise willing contributors to abandon ship? An optimist might argue that Wikipedians are focusing on quality rather than quantity, though many skeptics would beg to differ.
Not too long along Jaron Lanier was complaining about the quality of Wikipedia entries on certain obscure musical instruments — an area where Lanier has detailed knowledge. He says:
“Wikipedia is not just unreliable but unreliable in an insidious way. Entries are often just askew enough to screw someone up who might be trying to appreciate a recording better, or trying to get the background on an exotic instrument seen on stage. The Wikipedia has found a way to efficiently enable the fallacy of specious accuracy in text. Numerous mistakes occur below the threshold of detail found in conventional encyclopedias or online sources, so are hard to check, making “edit wars” excruciating. . .
I know, I know, why don’t I just go in to try to fix the problem entries I come upon? Because when you do that you have to engage in the aforementioned edit wars with anonymous people who are typically headstrong and have more time than I do to fight (but not enough time to do sufficiently thorough independent research, it seems.)
What do you think? Give us your take on the numbers.
