Hosta

Various publications and commentators have offered a range of predictions of the end of Wikipedia since it rose to prominence. Multiple potential dangers have been proposed, such as lack of quality-control, consistent editors, or administrators.

Many online encyclopedias exist; proposed replacements for Wikipedia have included Google's since-closed Knol,^[1][2] WolframAlpha,^[3] and AOL's since-closed Owl.^[4] The development of artificial intelligence and artificial intelligence in Wikimedia projects has prompted predictions that AI applications which consume Wikipedia's free and open content will also replace Wikipedia.^[5]

In a 2013 article for the MIT Technology Review, Tom Simonite listed issues such as hoaxes, vandalism, an imbalance of material, and inadequate quality control on articles.^[6] Christopher Dawson wrote on vulgar content and absence of sufficient references on articles in a 2008 article on ZDNET.^[7] Others suggest that the unwarranted deletion of useful articles from Wikipedia may portend its end. That brought about the creation of Deletionpedia, which itself ceased to exist in 2008 and was relaunched in 2013.^[8][9]

However, contrary to these predictions, Wikipedia has constantly grown in both size and influence.^{[10][11][12][13]}

Personnel

Wikipedia is crowdsourced by a few million volunteer editors. Tens of thousands contribute the majority of contents, and several thousand do quality control and maintenance work. As the encyclopedia expanded in the 2010s, the number of active editors did not steadily grow and sometimes declined. Various sources have predicted that Wikipedia will eventually have too few editors to be functional and collapse from lack of participation.^{[6][14][15][16][17][18][19]}

English Wikipedia has 893 volunteer administrators who perform various functions, including functions similar to those carried out by a forum moderator. Critics described their actions as harsh, bureaucratic, biased, unfair, or capricious and predicted that the resulting outrage would lead to the site's closure.^[6][20][21] Some such critics were aware of the duties of administrators; others merely assumed they govern the site.

Various 2012 articles reported that a decline in English Wikipedia's recruitment of new administrators could end Wikipedia.^[22][23]

Decline in editors

A 2014 trend analysis published in The Economist stated that "The number of editors for the English-language version has fallen by a third in seven years."^[25] The attrition rate for active editors in English Wikipedia was described by The Economist as substantially higher than in other languages (non-English Wikipedias). It reported that in other languages, the number of "active editors" (those with at least five edits per month) has been relatively constant since 2008: some 42,000 editors, with narrow seasonal variances of about 2,000 editors up or down.

In the English Wikipedia, the number of active editors peaked in 2007 at about 50,000 editors, and fell to 30,000 editors in 2014.^[25] A linear decline at this rate would leave no active editors of English Wikipedia by 2025.

Given that the trend analysis published in The Economist presented the number of active editors for Wikipedia in other languages (non-English Wikipedia) as remaining relatively constant, sustaining their numbers at approximately 42,000 active editors, the contrast pointed to the effectiveness of Wikipedia in those languages to retain their active editors on a renewable and sustained basis.^[25] Though different language versions of Wikipedia have different policies, no comment identified a particular policy difference as potentially making a difference in the rate of editor attrition for English Wikipedia.^[26] Editor count showed a slight uptick a year later, and no clear trend after that.

In a 2013 article, Tom Simonite of MIT Technology Review said that for several years running the number of Wikipedia editors had been falling and cited the bureaucratic structure and rules as a factor. Simonite alleged that some Wikipedians use the labyrinthine rules and guidelines to dominate others and have a vested interest in keeping the status quo.^[27] A January 2016 article in Time by Chris Wilson said Wikipedia might lose many editors because a collaboration of occasional editors and smart software will take the lead.^[28]

Andrew Lih and Andrew Brown both maintain editing Wikipedia with smartphones is difficult and discourages new potential contributors.^[14][17] Lih alleges there is serious disagreement among existing contributors how to resolve this. In 2015 Lih feared for Wikipedia's long-term future while Brown feared problems with Wikipedia will remain and rival encyclopedias will not replace it.^[14][17]

Viewers and funds

As of 2015, there had been a marked decline in persons who viewed Wikipedia from their computers, and according to The Washington Post "on their phones...[people are] far less likely to donate".^[29] At the time, the Wikimedia Foundation reported reserves equivalent to one year's budgeted expenditures. On the other hand, the number of paid staff had ballooned, so those expenses increased.^[29]

In 2021, Andreas Kolbe, a former co-editor-in-chief of The Signpost, wrote Wikimedia Foundation was reaching its 10-year goal of a $100 million endowment, five years earlier than planned, which may surprise donors and users around the world who regularly see Wikipedia fundraising banners. He also said accounting methods disguise the size of operating surpluses, top managers earn $300,000 – $400,000 a year, and over 40 people work exclusively on fundraising.^[30]

Timeline of predictions

In the fall of 2020, on the eve of the 20th anniversary of Wikipedia, associate professor of the Department of Communication Studies at Northeastern University Joseph Reagle conducted a retrospective study of numerous "predictions of the ends of Wikipedia" that took place in these 20 years.

He divided the waves of predictions into periods: "Early growth (2001–2002)", "Nascent identity (2001–2005)", "Production model (2005–2010)", "Contributor attrition (2009–2017)" and the current period "(2020–)". Each of these periods brought its own distinctive fatal predictions, which never came true. As a result, Reagle is firmly convinced that Wikipedia is not in danger.^[31]

See also

• Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia
• Wikipedia Zero

References

Further reading

• Gertner, Jon. (2023) "Wikipedia's Moment of Truth: Can the online encyclopedia help teach A.I. chatbots to get their facts right — without destroying itself in the process?" New York Times Magazine (July 18, 2023) online

• Lih, Andrew (2009). The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World's Greatest Encyclopedia. Hachette Books. ISBN 978-1401395858.
• Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014). Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia. ISBN 978-0804791205.
• WP:THREATENING2MEN Peake, Bryce (2015). "WP:THREATENING2MEN: Misogynist Infopolitics and the Hegemony of the Asshole Consensus on English Wikipedia". Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology (7). doi:10.7264/N3TH8JZS. Archived from the original on 2020-02-12. Retrieved 2020-02-16.
• Reagle, Joseph Michael; Lessig, Lawrence (2010). Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia. The MIT Press. ISBN 978-0262288705.
• Reagle, Joseph (15 October 2020). "The Many (Reported) Deaths of Wikipedia". In Jackie, Koerner (ed.). Wikipedia @ 20. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. p. 9. ISBN 9780262538176. Retrieved 4 December 2021.
• Solorio, Thamar; Hasan, Ragib; Mizan, Mainul. A Case Study of Sockpuppet Detection in Wikipedia (PDF). The University of Alabama at Birmingham.