Tighter rules prompt 49,000 volunteers to quit Wikipedia


After our session od P2P I thought this could be of interested. As pointed out in the article below some researcher beleave that on of the best known P2P examples Wikipedia might not be substainable. So what do you guys think? Well, I think that the number of contributions to Wikipedia might fall but I doubt that it will vanish. This is a good example about the thine line of boundaries. Maybe Wikipedia has overregulated it self. See also last sentence of the aritcal.

Ross Lydall http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23774713-wikipedia-could-vanish-as-tighter-rules-prompt-50000-volunteers-to-quit-site.do
The usefulness of Wikipedia could be under threat after researchers found that thousands of contributors had deserted the internet encyclopaedia.
The English-language version of the site suffered a net loss of 49,000 volunteer “editors” in the first three months of this year, compared with 4,900 for the same period a year earlier, according to a university study.
This is believed to be a result of increased bureaucracy to prevent errors – such as the death of Edward Kennedy being announced prematurely – and the sense that Wikipedia is now part of the establishment.
Founded in 2001 by Jimmy Wales, it has become the fifth most popular website in the world with about 325million visits a month.
It allows registered users to modify entries but this leaves it open to abuse.
Felipe Ortega, of the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in Madrid, told The Times: “If you don’t have enough people to take care of the project it could vanish quickly. We’re not in that situation yet. But eventually, if the negative trends follow, we could be.
“The articles are very tightly controlled by others now, and that makes it hard to jump in and contribute.”



One Response to “Tighter rules prompt 49,000 volunteers to quit Wikipedia”

  1. rlinton Says:

    Now that is an interesting article. I think you’re right to see that it raises questions about sustainability of such initiatives. I would broaden it from thinking in terms of P2P to an issue with the sustainability of the commons. Has it now become so “boundaried” that it is now a distorted commons, at best?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: