Comments on: The slowing growth of Wikipedia (part two): resistance from dominant editors http://blogs.parc.com/blog/2009/08/the-slowing-growth-of-wikipedia-part-two-resistance-from-dominant-editors/ perspectives, trends, discussions Sun, 20 Nov 2011 06:03:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: A modified proposed model of Wikipedia growth (part four) - PARC blog http://blogs.parc.com/blog/2009/08/the-slowing-growth-of-wikipedia-part-two-resistance-from-dominant-editors/comment-page-1/#comment-1165 A modified proposed model of Wikipedia growth (part four) - PARC blog Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:41:45 +0000 http://blogs.parc.com/?p=1130#comment-1165 [...] mentioned in our first post on the slowing growth rate of Wikipedia [see also our second and third posts on the topic] it appears that Wikipedia article growth peaked around 2007. It [...] [...] mentioned in our first post on the slowing growth rate of Wikipedia [see also our second and third posts on the topic] it appears that Wikipedia article growth peaked around 2007. It [...]

]]> By: Ed H. Chi http://blogs.parc.com/blog/2009/08/the-slowing-growth-of-wikipedia-part-two-resistance-from-dominant-editors/comment-page-1/#comment-585 Ed H. Chi Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:42:48 +0000 http://blogs.parc.com/?p=1130#comment-585 Michael, Yes, it definitely is part of an evolutionary process. The question is whether this is "normal", and what does "normal" mean? If "normal" means as systems get more complex, they must develop procedures for curating content that tends to be hierarchical, and that it is natural to have barriers for contribution, then yes, perhaps Wikipedia is going through a "normal" evolutionary process. Coordination breeds conflict and brings with it costs that are hard to contain. Is that what "normal" means? From a scientific point of view, does this research mean that, no matter what, eventually you will run into enough coordination costs that hierarchy needs to be created to manage those costs? On the other hand, if we believe that Wikipedia has been constructed from a different and flatter organization that relies on "wisdom" from the crowd, and that it ought to continue to evolve with minimal barriers for contribution, then it certainly isn't evolving "normally" in the Web2.0 sense. We may need more research in understanding how to further lower the cost of coordination (and perhaps invent new technology for conflict resolution or for forming consensus)... Michael,

Yes, it definitely is part of an evolutionary process. The question is whether this is “normal”, and what does “normal” mean?

If “normal” means as systems get more complex, they must develop procedures for curating content that tends to be hierarchical, and that it is natural to have barriers for contribution, then yes, perhaps Wikipedia is going through a “normal” evolutionary process. Coordination breeds conflict and brings with it costs that are hard to contain. Is that what “normal” means?

From a scientific point of view, does this research mean that, no matter what, eventually you will run into enough coordination costs that hierarchy needs to be created to manage those costs?

On the other hand, if we believe that Wikipedia has been constructed from a different and flatter organization that relies on “wisdom” from the crowd, and that it ought to continue to evolve with minimal barriers for contribution, then it certainly isn’t evolving “normally” in the Web2.0 sense.

We may need more research in understanding how to further lower the cost of coordination (and perhaps invent new technology for conflict resolution or for forming consensus)…

]]> By: Michael J http://blogs.parc.com/blog/2009/08/the-slowing-growth-of-wikipedia-part-two-resistance-from-dominant-editors/comment-page-1/#comment-581 Michael J Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:55:20 +0000 http://blogs.parc.com/?p=1130#comment-581 Might this also be framed as a picture of a normal evolutionary process. As I understand the blog post, the less frequent editors were reversed - disincented? or not able to gain the reward they wanted?, the more frequent editors were more successful at earning the rewards they desired. Given the notion that experts need talent +10,000 hours of practice, is it possible that from a system point of view, we are watching the mechanisms of the emergence of a Wikipedia "expert functionality"? Might this also be framed as a picture of a normal evolutionary process. As I understand the blog post, the less frequent editors were reversed – disincented? or not able to gain the reward they wanted?, the more frequent editors were more successful at earning the rewards they desired.

Given the notion that experts need talent +10,000 hours of practice, is it possible that from a system point of view, we are watching the mechanisms of the emergence of a Wikipedia “expert functionality”?

]]>