Who Killed Wikipedia?; NCAA editing: In the American magazine Pacific Standard, commentator Virginia Postrel asks "Who Killed Wikipedia?" (November 17). She details problems that have been plaguing the encyclopedia in recent years, beginning with the decline in the number of active editors. She concludes by noting that Wikipedia has survived for twelve years or so, meaning that those who argued it would prove unsustainable relatively quickly have been wrong. But, she asks, "the perils of adolescence were one thing. What about middle age?"
In the American magazine Pacific Standard, commentator Virginia Postrel asks "Who Killed Wikipedia?" (November 17). She details problems that have been plaguing the encyclopedia in recent years, beginning with the decline in the number of active editors. She notes that "Only about 3,000 editors contribute more than 100 changes a month to the English-language Wikipedia," whereas the number was about 4,700 in early 2007. She quotes a 2012 paper by Richard Jensen (User:Rjensen) as saying that Wikipedia is "operated by and for the benefit of the editors." She goes on to note that Wikipedia editors contribute to the site because they enjoy doing so, calling this "both the genius and the vulnerability of the organization." On the one hand, she says, Wikipedia's continued improvement is only possible because these volunteers are allowed to contribute to the site. On the other hand, Wikipedia's openness attracts a continuous stream of vandals and other types of unhelpful editors. This leads to the experienced contributors to the site becoming increasingly suspicious of new editors over time.
Postrel also interviews Dariusz Jemielniak and discusses his book Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia (see Signpostbook review), which focuses on why Wikipedia's organizational design works despite the fact that, according to Jemielniak, it should not. Postrel describes Wikipedia's Five pillars, noting that the neutral point of view rule is accompanied by two other policies pertaining to content: original research and verifiability. She notes that some editors focus almost entirely on reverting vandalism and other edits that violate Wikipedia's guidelines, and praises Wikipedia's entry on George W. Bush as "remarkably detailed and dispassionate."
Postrel then tackles the issue of talk page discussions, where article content disputes are discussed, and notes that disputes only end when a given article is written in such a way that all editors are satisfied with it. She notes the existence of the policy advising against biting newcomers (WP:BITE), but nevertheless argues that Wikipedia, in practice, deters outsiders using "procedural knowledge and a sort of passive-aggressive resistance", and quotes Jensen as saying that activists don't put up with small mistakes when they have been editing for five or ten years. She also argues that experienced Wikipedians would have reverted some of the early edits made by celebrated editor Adrianne Wadewitz (User:Wadewitz). As evidence that Wikipedians are too hostile to new editors, she cites a study by Aaron Halfaker which found that less than 10% of "desirable newcomers" continued editing for at least two months in 2011, whereas in the first half of 2006, more than 25% did. She then points out that this is a problem because Wikipedia is not finished, and "many articles still fall short of encyclopedia quality."
She concludes by noting that Wikipedia has survived for twelve years or so, meaning that those who argued it would prove unsustainable relatively quickly have been wrong. But, she asks, "the perils of adolescence were one thing. What about middle age?"
On December 13, 2012, NCAA President Mark Emmert emailed Bob Williams, NCAA Vice President of Communications, about his Wikipedia article: "Just saw that the Wikipedia site in [sic] me grossly misses the mark in describing the Penn State decision. Check it out and see how we put the record straight." Williams directed his staff to create new language for the article to replace material which he deemed "inaccurate" and "editorializing" in his testimony. An email from NCAA Web Director Ronnie Ramos proposed changes which match a December 17 edit to the article from an IP address belonging to the NCAA. The edit replaced this text:
“
As a result of increasing public pressure, Emmert bypassed key bylaws and procedures and forced Penn State University President Rodney Erickson, to either sign a consent decree accepting the sanctions or suffer the death penalty. [1] This action drew mixed reactions from the public, some of whom believed he overstepped his boundaries and did not provide Penn State the due process they believed was required.
”
with this, cited to the NCAA website:
“
The NCAA Division I Board of Directors and NCAA Executive Committee directed Emmert to examine the circumstances and determine appropriate action in consultation with these presidential bodies. Ed Ray, Executive Committee chair and Oregon State president, said that while there has been much speculation on whether the NCAA [2] had the authority to impose any type of penalty related to Penn State, the Executive Committee concluded the egregious behavior not only goes against NCAA rules and constitution but also against the NCAA's values. Because Penn State accepted the Freeh Report factual findings, which the university itself commissioned, the NCAA determined traditional investigative proceedings would be redundant and unnecessary. In making the announcement, Emmert said "We cannot look to NCAA history to determine how to handle circumstances so disturbing, shocking and disappointing."
”
Williams testified "And so, we routinely, now, routinely review Wikipedia and correct errors. Just like any other media."
The next day, Onward Statereported on the vandalism that occurred on Emmert's article following the revelations, vandalism which Onward State seemed to applaud and encourage. The article was semi-protected for three days, but vandalism resumed following the expiration of the protection.
Discuss this story