Samstag, 16. August 2014

hmmm.. #mediaviewer

Had a discussion with some people about "what the future will bring for Wikipedia" at Wikimania on Friday. Was reminded of my presentation last year "Wikipedia in 2022". That was me in 2013 (and to avoid misunderstandings that's neither a plan nor my goal, just a prediction):

 "Not anymore. Today your phone, car, house, social network, newspaper and doormat give you information you desire. The freezer still does not order the milk by itself, but it is able to sing the best quotes about milk, taken from Wikiquote. Or theses appliances give you some information you maybe desire. ... But why should one visit this large, confusing website to get some information that is badly targeted as well. The Wikimedia Foundation and some of the bigger chapters tried between 2014 and 2018 to develop these apps and software themselves. But still they were way too slow. Can you imagine? They actually tried to include the community in the process. It was a process that was as undemocratic as it was slow and ineffective. The Wikimedia efforts were much too concerned with preserving Wikipedia the way it was. No real change is possible when involving a community. Their attempts never took off. It couldn’t be really successful. So the race was made by more ruthless and more effective competition."

And by the way: it's not people messing up right now. It's structure that's not really working.


Anonym hat gesagt…

The competition doesn't even have to be ruthless to be better than Wikipedia, it's enough to do what everybody else does today: fast development cycles, A/B tests, trying things that might fail.

Maybe you want to present this at WikiCon?

Anonym hat gesagt…

Es muss doch in der Community auch ein paar Leute geben die wissen, dass sich das Web seit 2001 weiterentwickelt hat, und die mitbekommen, dass Wikipedia für neue Autoren kein attraktiver Ort mehr ist. Warum meldet sich von denen niemand zu Wort?

Anonym hat gesagt…

@anonymus II: das sagt man halt zwei, dreimal irgendwo und wird ignoriert und dann ist es einem egal und man hofft auf hilfe "von oben" oder so?

dirkfranke hat gesagt…

Zu den Leuten: warum meldet sich niemand zu Wort? Wie gesagt: Struktur, nicht Leute. Antwort in Kürze: (1) Wikipedia ist stukturell so aufgebaut, dass es wesentlich einfacher ist, eine Änderung zu verhindern als etwas zu verändern. (2) Wie bei allen Änderungen: Gewinne durch die Änderung sind unklar und verschwommen, Verluste sind klar und offensichtlich, diejenigen, die etwas zu verlieren haben, sind deutlich engagierter. (3) Alle Forschung zu Volksabstimmungen etc. zeigt recht deutlich, dass große Menschengruppen immer ziemlich konservativ sind was Änderungen jeder Art angeht. Die frühe Wikipedia mit all' ihren Änderungen war da eher erklärungsbedürftige Ausnahme als die jetzige.

A/B test.. okay, maybe ruthless is a hard word. But "fast development cycles etc., trying things" in a participatory environment with several hundred stakeholders sounds at least ambitious. When the alternatives are "work with them" or "work around them" the last one is not necessarily better, but almost inevitably quicker. And if you 20 have quick shots and 19 fails its still better than having none at all because people can't agree.