Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet

Has Wikipedia Peaked? 484

Posted by kdawson
from the overworked-and-unpaid dept.
An anonymous reader writes "After more than a year with no official statistics, an independent analysis reported Wednesday showed that activity in Wikipedia's community has been declining over the last six months. Editing is down 20% and new account creation is down 30%. After six years of rapid growth and more than 2 million articles, is Wikipedia's development now past its peak? Are Wikipedians simply running out of things to write about, or is the community collapsing under the weight of external vandalism and internal conflicts? A new collection of charts and graphs help to tell the tale."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Has Wikipedia Peaked?

Comments Filter:
  • by OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @10:05AM (#20939337) Homepage
    Has peaked a long time ago. Before

    --- PARAGRAPH FOR DEMOCRATS ---
    Fox news started to edit it

    --- PARAGRAPH FOR REPUBLICANS ---
    CNN and BBC started editing it

    Right now, a lot of articles are just plain dishonest. Just look up some controversial subjects. Contemporary forced subjugation and kidnapping children into slavery by muslims for example, or look at Bush's page that contains references to falsified news ...
  • Re:Natural? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by millwall (622730) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @10:09AM (#20939377)
    [...] the majority of the hobbiest-contributors (i.e. those who aren't die-hard users) simply don't have anything else to write.

    I second that. As a "hobbiest-contributor" myself I have written or expanded around 10 specialist articles. There is not a lot more specialist knowledge I feel that I have to contribute to Wikipedia - hence I've not added anything in the last 6 months or so.
  • Re:Wikiphobia (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Maury Markowitz (452832) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @10:09AM (#20939383) Homepage
    Find yourself a wikifriend. I'd be happy to volunteer (look me up on the wiki, I'm not hard to find).

    One new article with comments from a long-timer and you'll be off to the races.
  • by hansamurai (907719) <hansamurai@gmail.com> on Thursday October 11, 2007 @10:12AM (#20939425) Homepage Journal
    Oh, there's plenty of things to write about, the community has slowly been taken over by a few who seemingly wish to destroy it from within, or at least shape it into their ideal site. Legitimate and well written articles are constantly deleted or merged because they're "not notable" or they're fancruft. These of course, are okay reasons to delete articles, but when entire projects are basically swept away by one person who twist the guidelines in their favor (or had a corrupt hand in writing them in the first place), it's a great turn off.

    People go around touting "Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia" in one discussion, and then in the next want to get rid or some article because "it's not encyclopedic." I guess I see my ideal Wikipedia as a complete collection. If someone writes a decent, complete article on something somewhat obscure, and it's deleted because it's not notable enough, that just doesn't make sense to me. Maybe I'm just bitter and my view of Wikipedia doesn't agree with the majority? Don't know.

    I am annoyed about how they're trying to rid of trivia sections. Those are some of the most interesting parts of an article if you ask me.
  • if it is peaking (Score:4, Interesting)

    by circletimessquare (444983) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {erauqssemitelcric}> on Thursday October 11, 2007 @10:12AM (#20939435) Homepage Journal
    that's a hell of a peak, and it should stay the leader for awhile in what it does: being the default encylcopedia for the world

    that's because wikipedia benefits from the network effect far more than say google or yahoo. it is no small effort, but it is doable, to spider the web and compete with google or yahoo, and make a bid at becoming the defacto search standard instead of them. you need a platoon of programmers and a supply depot of big iron servers. but all that is required to do that is have a lot of cash

    meanwhile, consider a hypothetical wikipedia competitor. you have to, somehow, remobilize millions of freelance editors and article contributors. cash can't do that, only passion can

    all i'm saying is is that it is easier to bomb germany than it is to herd cats, because bombing germany just takes a lot of bombs and planes, but herding cats requires some sort of superhuman level of finesse no amount of money can buy

    so if wikipedia is peaking, i think it is because wikipedia is maxing out on not its potential, but maxing out on the entire potential of its market segment. if wikipedia is peaking, it is not because interest is waning or a competitor is in sight, but simply because there is nowhere more to grow to. which is pretty impressive. wikipedia owns its space in the internet, and its not some subtle niche. its a huge and important market space. wikipedia is a massive success, by any measure

  • Re:Answers (Score:0, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11, 2007 @10:17AM (#20939491)
    How is the parent insigntful?

    Assertions, with no evidence to back them up, only give insignt into the agenda of the commentor. Knowing that that the commentor is biased, our level of confidence drops further, rendering the comment not just pointless but possibly counter-productive to the commentors aims in posting it.

    Kind of like most Wrongipedia articles in fact.
  • by IndustrialComplex (975015) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @10:17AM (#20939517)

    I'd actually say that Wikipedia has been far more successful as an example of a collaborative Free product than Linux has. Wikipedia actually dominates the market now.


    Not surprisingly, since the barrier for entry into Wikipedia is much lower. Collaboration in Linux requires some fairly specific knowledge if you are trying to do anything grander than test from an end user perspective. Wikipedia simply requires that you have something to add and a desire to comment.
  • by Applekid (993327) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @10:19AM (#20939553)
    Thing is, dishonest articles and misleading text won't get fixed. I gave up contributing to Wikipedia when I had my editing slammed left and right from "regulars" selectively applying rules in order to shut out the unpopular. "No original research" only applies when your assertions are against consensus, regardless of how accurate, "You don't own the article" only applies if you're outnumbered by a bunch of others that do own the article, "Bias" only when you're striving for uniformity.

    I mean, I'm not even talking about abortion or rape or anything... look at the fight over "XOR" vs. "Exclusive-OR". Sheesh.

    http://www.wikitruth.info/ [wikitruth.info] has some info... but don't take it's word on it. Give editing Wikipedia a shot and see the shitstorm it can raise.
  • by Kinwolf (945345) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @10:23AM (#20939605)
    Personally, I stopped adding contribution when two articles I wrote(about 2 comic books series that where published by Dark Horse years ago)where marked for deletion. When I asked why, the validator answered that he did a google search and found nothing on the subject, so it was not worthy of being there. So there you have it, if it's not on google, it does not exist and has no business being in an encyclopedia where knowledge is supposed to be kept. With such an attitude, I saw no reason to continue adding stuff there.
  • Re:Wikiphobia (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ta bu shi da yu (687699) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @10:25AM (#20939639) Homepage
    Without seeing your edit history, it's a bit hard to comment. However, did you source the material you added? If you don't, it probably will get removed or modified.
  • Re:Answers (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tomhudson (43916) <barbara...hudson@@@barbara-hudson...com> on Thursday October 11, 2007 @10:28AM (#20939687) Journal
    The whole question was silly. If the number of contributors were to drop by 95%, the Wiki would still be growing - in other words, it will only reach its peak when it completely stops getting contributions, which isn't happening.
  • Re:Wikiphobia (Score:2, Interesting)

    by wlad (1171323) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @10:30AM (#20939725)
    You can use wikipedia to look up information, but sure, you cannot quote it as source in a debate. That'd be crazy. Which is why wikipedia requires contributors to source statements, so you can quote the real source if you find a piece you want to mention.
  • I am annoyed about how they're trying to rid of trivia sections. Those are some of the most interesting parts of an article if you ask me.

    It's more than this. Wikipedia seems to have shifted from a content creation phase, to a content editing phase.

    I've noticed a lot over the past few weeks that more and more articles are being edited to remove things like trivia section, add citations, and trim things quite a bit. There's also been a big move to remove many images from the site that are deemed "unsafe", i.e. copyrighted, for whatever reason.

    I've spoken with people who became disgruntled with Wikipedia. They had the usual concerns, which I personally deemed trivial. However, one thing that did catch my ear was their dislike of the Wikipedia admins, or super editors, or whatever they are called. The stories matched up and went something like this:

    Administrators are less concerned about content than they are about the "quality" of that content. Quality usually means, spell checks, structure, copyrights, citations and general "encyclopedic worthiness" of the underlying material. One gets to be an administrator by doing things like, spell checking, minor editing, rearranging and moving articles, deleting "unworthy" articles, etc. There's also a great desire for articles to conform to the rules and polices of the site.

    The complaints usually revolved around pedantic and often autocratic admins deleting entire articles or a series of articles on "unworthy" topics; say an anime series or a fairly geeky debate on memes. Often very interesting content, like trivia sections** are removed wholesale. It's usually the case that the admins have grouped together and implemented a new "policy" which justifies their actions, despite how every many editors might object.

    I'm not overly familiar with the politics Wikipedia, so I can't personally attest to much of this. However, the tale has come to me in a pretty consistent fashion from a variety of sources; namely that Wikipedia is slowly but surely being taken over by a very anal retentive clique of "Wikicrats", and that the tone of the place is changing accordingly. It sounded a little hyperbolic at the time, but slowly I'm beginning to see changes in the tone of articles.

    I think it's a shift that Wikipedia was probably always going to make. But it seems a pity that the place is to become burdened by rules, policies and general bureaucracy. Death by a thousand kilometers of red tape seems an ill fitting fate for a site that blossomed by a billion altruistic edits.

    **Though personally, I do think a few trivia sections could do with trimming.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11, 2007 @10:36AM (#20939799)
    Anyone that has ever edited any article on anything even remotely political is likely to have had their material completely removed within minutes, whether sourced or not and possibly their accounts banned. The extremist Administrator Jayjg is known to internally release your hidden IP address to other "Administrators" (when he is not spending literally years editing the article on circumcision) One of the highest Administrators, Slimvirgin was actually revealed to be a former intelligence agent named Linda Mack that spends nearly 24/7 on there with multiple sock puppets abusing editors.

    It's not surprise to me that people are fed up with the likes of these and the duplicitous "Jimbo" Wales who claims to have an open encyclopedia. The problem is it only is only open to a few political extremists that have managed to get a foothold in the highest levels of adminstration and change phrases like "extrajudicial killing" or "assasination" to "targeted killing" or sex-trafficking to "human trafficking" to completely removed.

    The "Human Rights in Israel" Article actually devotes a good part of its space to talking about why Amnesty International is actually anti-semitic for documenting violations Israel has made, and uses the lawyer that got OJ Simpson off a murder charge as the source!! I can't imagine why people would be fleeing this burning building in droves :-)
  • by wexsessa (908890) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @10:37AM (#20939819)
    Citizendium has some features intended (& designed) to address several of the concerns that Wikipedia has raised. Obviously it will have a long way to go before it encompasses Wikipedia's breadth, though it's depth should be as good or better from the start. Citizendium starts here: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Main_Page [citizendium.org]
  • by johnsie (1158363) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @10:39AM (#20939853)
    I recently made a 3rd party add-on for a game. Trolls used wikipedia to try and smear my reputation. They also used it to make cheap insults about me and my project. I wrote to wikipedia to get any references to my project removed and they haven't got back to me. I also tried deleting the article and the people who were being abusive just reposted it. Now I could spend a lot of time checking wikipedia for slander and changing it every few days but why the hell should I have to. Surely the people at wikipedia need to take more responsibility for the contents of their site.
  • by babbling (952366) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @10:40AM (#20939871)
    Reaching a peak is quite natural. I imagine Wikipedia probably has pretty much peaked. I imagine Google has similarly peaked. When almost everyone in the potential audience uses it, how could it be possible to get new users?

    So, Radiohead's new album was announced about 10 days ago, and the In Rainbows article [wikipedia.org] makes Wikipedia look pretty "alive," if you ask me!
  • Re:Natural? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by lamona (743288) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @10:46AM (#20939951) Homepage
    I'd have thought the majority of the hobbiest-contributors (i.e. those who aren't die-hard users) simply don't have anything else to write.

    I agree that the most enthusiastic hobby-ists have probably done what they will do, but I see another aspect: that Wikipedia has gotten so large that it has reached a level of chaos, rather than organization. People cannot visualize the location of their page in the whole, so it doesn't seem worth adding it. I would expect the next few years to concentrate on creating narrow topic WP's where the contributors can see the value that they are adding.

    I think of this as the "all the x in the world" phenomenon. People are always starting off to create a site or system that has a goal of capturing the whole, but the whole turns out not to have boundaries, and in the end we can't relate to it. Most of us don't want everything, we want something, and we want the right something.

  • Wiki-entropy (Score:4, Interesting)

    by athloi (1075845) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @10:46AM (#20939957) Homepage Journal
    We all know that moderators on most forums are abusive, and most blogs tend toward being personal reflections instead of informative. Why are we surprised Wiki followed the same path?

    Wiki's great strength and great weakness has been its model. Anyone can contribute, but that then requires cops to police the anyones. Then who watches the watchers?

    I read Wikipedia for articles regarding computer technologies and video games. On any other subject, it's often an inferior resource. Even further, I've found that most articles (which take the #1 Google spot) are plagiarized from the articles at Google spots 3-7.

    For many topics, there are better specialized sources written by actual experts in the field, and not bitter grad students, and these are overshadowed by Wikipedia's prominence. This "decline" was long in the making.
  • Re:Wikiphobia (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @10:53AM (#20940069)
    Well, the question is how "independent" the source is. I've seen it more than once that it's been basically a circle-jerk. When you dig deep enough you'll see that those "sources" pretty much link to one another. That's also a way to fabricate "truth". A says something, B picks it up and points to A as its confirmation, C sees B and quotes it, which in turn A notices and uses C to support its "truth".

    Now add in the agendas of A, B and C and you get quite funny twists and "quotes". Bet I can prove with the help of the WHO and a few other "sources" that second hand smoking is actually good for your health?

    Simply quoting a source is meaningless if you can't verify how good the source is.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11, 2007 @10:56AM (#20940111)
    I was in an interesting situation with an article about some software. The software was notable as being an early pioneer in Internet web application software. Now, in order to prove that it was notable, the editors wanted an online review or something similar, of a program written in 1994. Not a lot of reviews of servers in 1994, but I found some archived press releases.

    Not good enough. It was considered self sourced because 'anyone could release a press release' and have an article. So, apparently, in 1994, a company released a press release so they could get a wikipedia article in 2006. Then a review in 2000 was considered not notable, because there were already several dozen similar programs. A statement by the company was not good enough either.

    Article deleted.

    Since then, I've started an attack on deletionists. I've gotten some to quit. It's a fun pastime, all you need to do is spend a little time with google and get lots of sources for what they want to delete, then the tide turns against them.
  • Re:Wikiphobia (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Tetsujin (103070) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @11:20AM (#20940489) Homepage Journal

    Article discussion pages??
    Ugh. Whose brain-dead idea was it to use the Wiki page-editing functionality for something that ought to be implemented as a message board?
  • by Raul654 (453029) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @11:25AM (#20940587) Homepage
    For about 3 years, I've been manually keeping track of some statistics that are important to me here [wikipedia.org].

    Some of Dragonfly's (the person who created those graphs) observations are fairly easy to explain, others require some knowledge of the site. Since I've been at Wikipedia (starting back in mid 2003) new article production has gone through 3 phases: (1) First it was super-linear. That is, each month, we produced slightly more new article than the previous month. Many people predicted that this would ultimately become exponential, and (2) eventually exponential growth is what we got. However, since last August, (3) that has mostly flattened out, to a relatively constant 40k-60k new article per month. I think the answer why is pretty obvious - all of the low-hanging fruit is long gone. When I started editing, there were lots of red links (links to articles that don't exist) that any non-expert might be able to churn out in 2 minutes. Many of the new articles I create nowadays [wikipedia.org] are highly esoteric, some of which I created after seeing them mentioned in journal papers I was peer reviewing. (Examples: Gustafson's law [wikipedia.org], Antigenic escape [wikipedia.org]).

    As far as new account registration, that's a bit more complex to explain. First and most obviously, Wikipedia is not new anymore. We're not going to see the kind of new-user account registrations that we used to. But there's another, more complicated factor at work. For about 9 months (March to December 2006), there existed a technique to vandalize Wikipedia with impunity. You register lots of accounts, and then use each one to vandlize exactly once, log out, log back in with another accout and vandalize, etc. Mediawiki did not block your IP unless you attempted to register from a blocked account, so by editing with each one exactly once you avoided ever having your IP blocked. The only effective way to combat this was to have checkuser access (which I have, but I'm one of only about 10 people on the English Wikipedia who do) I filed a bug report, which was fixed in December 2006. I suspect that a lot of the drop-off in user account registration has to do with this bug being fixed. Registering 100 throw-away accounts was no longer effective, so people did not do it, therefore - I suspect- account registration went down.
  • by IGnatius T Foobar (4328) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @11:26AM (#20940603) Homepage Journal
    Do a Google search on innumerable topics and Wikipedia shows up as the first link. This is Wikipedia's biggest problem. Anyone with an interest in how their topic of interest (themselves, their company, product, or service, something they're involved with, etc. etc. etc.) is seen on the Internet is therefore going to have a vested interest in what Wikipedia says about that topic. And then ... oh look! The entry on Wikipedia is editable! No wonder Wikipedia is a magnet for PR and turf wars. I lost my taste for Wikipedia when some people who have a personal axe to grind with me located a Wikipedia entry for a scene I was involved with years ago, and began spamming it with lies -- well written, but revisionist history nonetheless. Then when I reverted their edits they accused me of "vandalism" and it sparked an edit war. After the Wikipedia "management" got involved, we were forced to reach a "compromise" that still isn't 100% truth. How does a supposedly encyclopedic writing claim accuracy when you have to compromise with people who write complete falsehoods?
  • Too much democracy (Score:4, Interesting)

    by FridayBob (619244) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @11:27AM (#20940639) Homepage
    After 18 months of flat-out wiki-madness involving an effort to organize and improve hundreds of articles, I quite working on the project last month following a dispute. My critics were a couple of people who had contributed next to nothing to the project, but they had an opinion ("You're violating the guidelines!") and they had a vote equal to mine. True, I was working mostly on my own and had developed a few unique solutions to some common problems, but no matter how hard I tried to explain, it was just no use. Eventually, it came to a vote that I won with the help of a few friends I had made, but by that time I could see the writing on the wall.

    It's not the first time I had been frustrated with Wikipedia. Earlier, I had tried working at Citizendium, hoping to escape the endless vandalism and find some more reasonable people to deal with. At first things seemed promising, but then it was decided that all of the old Wikipedia articles would be deleted, which felt a lot like throwing out the baby with the bathwater (so much for being a fork), and then Larry Sanger turned out to be a little too much of a micro-manager for my taste. So, it was back to Wikipedia.

    As I see it now, however, Wikipedia's main problem is not so much the vandalism, but that it is too much of a democracy. In such an environment, the average article can only be improved so far before it begins to degrade. It's not that too many cooks spoil the broth, but that's what happens when many (or most) of the cooks don't know what they're doing (or talking about). The problem becomes even more acute when hundreds of articles are involved that need to be organized into a coherent whole. You can see to it personally that the quality of one or more article is maintained, but as soon as you stop, then things start to slide downhill again.

    If, on the other hand, Wikipedia were to become more of a meritocracy, then I have no doubt that things would improve considerably. I'm sure many Slashdotters can imagine ways to do that, but I think they would also agree that such measures would leave the project looking quite different. In fact, it would probably take all the fun out of it for most people. But then, what do we want Wikipedia to be: fun, or a place to find good articles with accurate information?
  • Re:Woah! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by shdowhawk (940841) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @12:08PM (#20941267)
    Are you saying that because a computerized knowledge base, owned, operated, and edited by people with computers, has a lot of stuff about computers in it, that it must therefore have a lot of stuff about everything in it? What about needlepoint? String collecting? Mayan hunting techniques? No, my friend, there's a lot more stuff to wiki about.

    That's where I see the problem. Mayan Hunting techniques? Sure! Let me get some of those tribal mayan hunters... or some of the tribal africans who've never seen a computer.. to log in and write up an ar... wait, what?!

    I think the issue at hand, is that the people who actively contribute, are running out of things to write about. There is a TON more that can go into wiki, but the "experts" or ... people who even CARE about those subjects, are not the type who care about writing up articles about it.

    The problem we need to solve for is... how to get the rest of the world to open up about their knowledge so that we can share from it. If the contributers don't KNOW of a new subject... how can they research it to find out about it and to eventually write it up?

    I don't know if this already exists, and after a quick look i wasn't seeing it... but is there a "request an article" section? Example... I want to know about "Kings Mail", a specific type of way of making chainmail. It would be cool to post my request into a repository of "requests" for contributes to be able to look through?

  • by HydroCarbon10 (40784) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @12:54PM (#20941877) Journal
    What I fail to understand is this - everyone can agree that the articles should be written from a neutral viewpoint, but when it comes to what constitutes knowledge, suddenly the concept of neutrality disappears and it becomes an argument over beliefs. You've declared that what you believe to be knowledge is the only valid viewpoint, and you seek to impose that viewpoint on other users of Wikipedia. If successful, you turned what was once a tool to explore knowledge, and even the concept of what is knowledge, into just your version of knowledge. You prevent Wikipedia from growing beyond your own beliefs and doom it to being nothing more than an inferior copy of a traditional encyclopedia.
  • by Explodicle (818405) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @01:00PM (#20941991) Homepage
    ... And you shouldn't either. Far to often new articles are deleted (or worse, Speedy Deleted with no discussion at all), and the records of the page are only accessable to admins. I used to keep a local copy myself just to protect against this abuse, but gave up on it. I have found the best strategy is to just add content to existing articles until they get so bloated you can split a section off into an article of its own. At least then if they delete the new article, you can revert the old one to keep your work. The deletion system favors article mitosis.
  • by HooliganIntellectual (856868) <hooliganintellectual.gmail@com> on Thursday October 11, 2007 @01:15PM (#20942181)
    The problem is mostly with the other users. The administrators are a problem in that they help implement many pointless bureaucratic guidelines.

    I'm a librarian and professional writer who has contributed to Wikipedia over the years, but have gotten tired of the bullshit created by other users. At this point I'm contributing more to other online open wiki projects. Wikipedia has lots of excellent content, but some pages just can't be changed because some people have staked them out as their turf and refuse to allow any edits. I know of pages that are clearly POV and inaccurate, but if I or anybody else tries to revise them and significantly change them, we'll be baited into violating the "three revert rule" or otherwise be harassed by the resident zealots.

    Wikipedia itself has implemented some stupid policies and some unintentionally hilarious policies. The decision this year to start removing images from thousands of pages because of copyright concerns is just insanity to the nth degree. Whoever made this decision doesn't understand current copyright law, because their policy about images is even more draconian than the current draconian copyright law. Many images have been removed from pages that aren't violating any copyrights. But if Wikipedia admins want to piss on their product with stupid decisions like this, then they'll only drive more people away.

    My favorite hilarious example of current Wikipedia stupidity is the warning tag attached to many pages that says "Trivia sections are discouraged by Wikipedia." Uh, guys, Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia about popular culture. Putting these warnings over trivia sections that won't be removed is just silly. The trivia sections are why people use Wikipedia. Another funny development is the proliferation of tagging of pages for being "stubs" and poorly sourced. Hello? After years of criticism, Wikipedia is just now getting self-conscious about its veracity? Funny!
  • by snowwrestler (896305) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @05:58PM (#20946559)
    I only half-believe this and have not done the detailed digging needed to really validate it. But I'll throw it out there for discussion:

    Wikia is a service that allows any niche group to create their own sort of "wikipedia" for their topic. And unlike Wikipedia, it is for-profit, and clearly belongs to Jimmy Wales.

    Wales seeded the admin system on Wikipedia and continues to be influential in its direction. It is in his direct interest if Wikipedia takes the "notability" route to its logical conclusion--pushing out all sub-topics or verticals that are not popularly or widely known. The associated interest groups are then welcome to come to Wikia to set up their knowledge base. Only now it will generate profit and fame for Jimmy Wales, instead of the Wikipedia Foundation. Plus, these types of small, focused, not-widely-known areas of knowledge are ideal points of attack against Google's search results. Getting them into the Wikia fold helps feed the new "Google killer" search engine project.
  • Wikipedia was a fad (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11, 2007 @07:58PM (#20947869)
    Wikipedia will always be famous as the first application of wiki technology to make wikis popular, but as time has gone by, the ridiculous behavior of users and administrators has exposed not only flaws in the technology, but also how those flaws make a straightforward wiki unsuitable for such things as an encyclopedia.

    I have nothing against wikis, nor against Jimbo Wales, and indeed, I believe there's a strong chance whatever service succeeds Wikipedia might actually come out of Wikia, but the site itself will eventually pass into obscurity the way others such as Yahoo and Geocities have.

A meeting is an event at which the minutes are kept and the hours are lost.

Working...