• GunnarRunnar
    link
    fedilink
    55
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Hopefully they realize it’s not healthy for Wikipedia in long term and make a course correction.

    No idea how they work internally but probably some kind of mentoring program would be in order. There’s no way someone relatively new will learn all their quirks that have been developed in the past decade and too many people on the internet expect you to know everything already to be worth a shit to them.

    • Silverseren
      link
      fedilink
      651 year ago

      There is a mentoring program and I’m a part of it. Unfortunately, a lot of the accounts going through it very blatantly aren’t there to actually make a good Wikipedia article on something, but to instead promote themselves or their company.

      • @gibmiser@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        231 year ago

        Half-baked idea incoming.

        Wiki Jr. A Wikipedia dedicated to kids culture. Kids contribute and edit, have a mentor, put it on college applications. When they turn 18 can migrate account to real Wikipedia.

        • Silverseren
          link
          fedilink
          201 year ago

          Possibly, though Wikipedia and all of its related projects have an 18+ requirement. Likely because of copyright issues, as under 18 year olds legally can’t give up a share-alike license on the content they make.

          • Aatube
            link
            fedilink
            61 year ago

            Note that this requirement is not really enforced

            • Silverseren
              link
              fedilink
              91 year ago

              It is if you reveal you’re underaged. But if you keep quiet about it, no one will know. That’s true for the entirety of the internet.

          • @chickenf622@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            Can they just give it to the public domain? I’m sure Wikipedia would other copy left systems, but for kid content I could see it being less important.

            • Silverseren
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              It’s possible. I’m not a copyright expert, so I have no idea how things like that work and what the potential legal pitfalls are.

          • bean
            link
            fedilink
            English
            6
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I know it’s a joke, but the world isn’t super black and white. Kids want to help, by nature. My family owned a business when I was underage. I wanted to help and did little little things, but not allowed to help customers. When I was old enough I got hired for real and paid for it. By then I knew most things and was a good contributor, and learned a lot about balancing ledgers and counting registers, etc.

            I also was manager at a young age after I moved out and went to other things, because I had experience already!

            This isn’t to say I’m for child labor. Just that, for centuries kids have helped out and learned things by being a part of stuff. Blocking that off complete until they are 18 isn’t benefiting them either. Just to be clear though, the thought of kids working in meat plants and such; sickens me. 😷

            I’m only pointing out the world isn’t black and white, and that perhaps there are in-between places which can benefit youths.

        • @MBM@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          51 year ago

          I don’t know if it still exist, but that used to be a thing. I was pretty active on there during primary school.

        • Silverseren
          link
          fedilink
          161 year ago

          I think long-term retention is more the problem. There’s plenty of new editors that show up to do something, but they don’t care about being an editor on broader subjects long-term.

          There’s attempts to retain interest more through things like editathons on specific topics, such as with the Women in Red group, that have seen a decent amount of success.

          • FaceDeer
            link
            fedilink
            241 year ago

            I used to be an editor, and an admin. Quite a prolific one, in fact. I eventually quit (not really “officially”, I just gradually ran down my frequency of editing until I eventually realized I just wasn’t any more) because editing Wikipedia was no longer fun. And as far as I could tell, that was deliberate and as-designed.

            Rules, rules, rules. No articles on quirky topics for the sake of quirky topics. Strict limits on pop culture. Articles for Deletion became a death sentence, arguing felt like trying to be a lawyer in a court that had already ruled against you and was just making things official. Just a tiring slog to produce something I wasn’t terribly interested in any more.

            Not really sure what the solution is, if there even is one. Wikipedia seems to be what it wants to be, now. I am a bit saddened because what it used to be was fun, but I’ve moved on. I’m glad Wikipedia still exists and has been useful to a great many people over the years.

            • Silverseren
              link
              fedilink
              81 year ago

              I mean, is it surprising that a project aimed at becoming a proper encyclopedia would become stricter on content and raise the standards over time?

              Which makes complete sense for pop culture stuff and especially things like Trivia sections that try to be added to a bunch of articles, adding things in like appearances of a historical subject in any and every manga that features them and any TV episode. That’s not really something that’s needed.

              • FaceDeer
                link
                fedilink
                101 year ago

                Nope, not surprising, which is why I figure it’s as-designed.

                That’s not really something that’s needed.

                Well, is it? If the problem is that no new editors are joining then perhaps something that new editors would enjoy working on is needed.

                If Wikipedia is fine with continuing to get greyer and greyer, ossifying into a “proper” and “serious” encyclopedia, then that’s fine I guess. If new blood is needed, on the other hand, maybe look at things that would attract it and consider that as something that’s needed.

                It’s not like Wikipedia can offer a wage increase.

                • Aatube
                  link
                  fedilink
                  21 year ago

                  Wikipedia is already a proper encyclopedia, as has been the case six years ago. Pop culture sections are still allowed, they’re just restricted to reliably sourced entries to prevent being disproportionally long and having shaky entries that are a stretch

                  • FaceDeer
                    link
                    fedilink
                    31 year ago

                    Yes, those are all things I said in my comment already. I think they are the main reason for the lack of new blood.

                    If you don’t think the lack of new blood is a problem, then that’s all fine. If the lack of new blood is a problem, then maybe those things need to be reevaluated.