Jenny Kleeman is scarcely the most incisive critic of Wikipedia around, but I'm surprised this wasn't picked up by the RSS feed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/...runtled-editors
Full Version: Wikipedia falling victim to a war of words
QUOTE(Trick cyclist @ Sun 6th December 2009, 11:27am) 
Jenny Kleeman is scarcely the most incisive critic of Wikipedia around, but I'm surprised this wasn't picked up by the RSS feed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/...runtled-editors
No loss. "There's also the chance that Wikipedia may be the victim of its own success. With more than three million English language articles, perhaps the editors have simply run out of things to say."
QUOTE(Trick cyclist @ Sun 6th December 2009, 12:27pm)
...I'm surprised this wasn't picked up by the RSS feed.
It actually did get picked up, but we merged it in with all the other "Wikipedia is losing tens of thousands of editors" stories...
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=206561
...which wasn't a particularly nice thing to do, since Jenny Kleeman is one of the few reporters who at least knows WR exists. (Then again, she didn't mention us in the article...)
Favorite quote and misguided assumption from the article:
Way to go, Charles. Keep slurping that Jimbo Juice, friend.
QUOTE
Wikipedia's most loyal volunteers aren't worried. "Wikipedia was really hot in 2007," says Charles Matthews, one of the site's most prolific editors. "After that peak, we were left with those who are relatively serious about the encyclopedia."
Way to go, Charles. Keep slurping that Jimbo Juice, friend.
QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 6th December 2009, 2:28pm)
QUOTE(Trick cyclist @ Sun 6th December 2009, 12:27pm)
...I'm surprised this wasn't picked up by the RSS feed.
It actually did get picked up, but we merged it in with all the other "Wikipedia is losing tens of thousands of editors" stories...
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=206561
...which wasn't a particularly nice thing to do, since Jenny Kleeman is one of the few reporters who at least knows WR exists. (Then again, she didn't mention us in the article...)
It's yet another "omg 49,000 editors left" piece with little (if anything) new to add to the discussion. Rightly merged, in my view.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 6th December 2009, 8:34pm)
Favorite quote and misguided assumption from the article:
QUOTE
Wikipedia's most loyal volunteers aren't worried. "Wikipedia was really hot in 2007," says Charles Matthews, one of the site's most prolific editors. "After that peak, we were left with those who are relatively serious about the encyclopedia."
Way to go, Charles. Keep slurping that Jimbo Juice, friend.
Yes Charles, and keep fucking that chicken!
QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Sun 6th December 2009, 9:49pm)
It's yet another "omg 49,000 editors left" piece with little (if anything) new to add to the discussion. Rightly merged, in my view.
It does have a good quote from our own Barry "Moulton" Kort:
QUOTE
"It's colloquially known as the cabal, although it's more like a hierarchy of power cliques, each one staking out its territory,"
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.