Love, hate, and the Wikipedia contributor culture problem



And despite all the Wiki-loving followup comments, plus this, the last commentor says:

I see---the open-source software crowd is confusing Wikipedia's operations with "openness". Evidently I must send emails to Chris Grams and Jeff Mackanic, with links and diffs, showing them how corrupt the Magic Open Wiki actually is.

It's like they're snorting pixie dust or something.

I followed a link from the above article to another post that was suggesting seven different ways of motivation that Wikipedia hasn't tried, either out of a lack of inertia or as against the general open philosophy.

I found it interesting because, if adopted, many of the suggestions would simply codify existing de facto practices (the barnstars and such). However at the same time they would also create a greater separation between "power users" and the regular chaps... people already chafe against that right now (and it's been cited as a reason for the declining membership), so I'm not sure how that's helping. (Especially with the "hate Wikipedia" bit from the topic article.)

At the same time, I find some of the examples of "good" sites with human motivation lacking. Associated Content, for example, is overrun with what appears to be housewives writing homemaking tips; while there is certainly a community, it doesn't appear to scale or even be centralized. There might be room for Wikipedia to change its model (if the community was willing), but I'm not sure such radical changes would be necessary to get a practical benefit (something as simple as expanding the bounty/rewards board into an actual effective mechanism, for example.)

Edit: Also, Associated Content's major "draw" is not the upfront payments for articles, but the $1.50-2.00 per 1000 page views on a page with at least one ad. Obviously this wouldn't work for Wikipedia unless they plastered the site with ads to compensate. Perhaps Kohs can shed light on the relative "bang" a single ad can generate to make such payouts worth it?

Depends if the content is about debt consolidation loans or asbestos lawyers, or whether the content is about minor planet 945 Barcelona or a list of members of the 77th West Virginia House of Delegates.

Ads on the former pair would generate worthwhile payouts, while ads on the latter pair would not.

I really don't see why they can't some articles like those you have in newspapers and magazines, clearly saying 'this is an advert', or saying it has been sponsored. That could pay for 'History of logic type articles, or obscure planets.