Wikipedia talk:Imminent death of Wikipedia predicted
Imminent Bankruptcy edit
Judging by the popup appeals for money, begging for $3, Wikipedia is on the verge of bankruptcy. Don't worry, though WMF has over $100 million in its fund balance.Alexander Springstea (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
I noticed some things edit
"* All the serious editors are leaving" Beats me.
"* The only people who hang around are children" I'm not ridiculously young, but I'm not 18 yet...
"* Most edits are now made by robots" No idea.
"* Article syntax is too complicated for normal users and new editors" Not in my opinion, it was pretty easy for me when I started.
"* Pop culture articles are longer than science or history articles" Beats me.
"* Power-hungry administrators are warring against content creators so they can delete everything and rule a perfect, empty wiki [Is this right? -- Ed.] " lololol
"* The people with the most time to edit are also those with the most time and inclination to argue in perpetuity" Pretty accurate...
"* Nobody bothers to capitalize and punctuate (mostly because they are deprived parents)" I do.
"* The Great Space Wombat said it was" lol who? ggg "*It is also encouraged not to use wiki as a research material" Unless you want to learn something not usually taught in school, and there is no better resource in the certain case.
So I would say about a third of this is accurate. — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 23:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- satire Asparagusus (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- About "* All the serious editors are leaving": we have shown the door to homeopaths, antivaxxers, racists, religious POV-pushers, and so on. Is true that some of them did valid edits, but on the whole they could not control themselves and their presence was a danger to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has become more selective, its standards are now higher. Not everybody is fit for the job, even if it is a volunteer job. Some people could be good Wikipedians if they just avoid some topics, but they lack the self-control to avoid discussing those topics. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, I've seen many "serious" (as defined as having contributed a lot of content, willing to do the crap jobs, etc.) editors do leave after a certain period, say 5-10 years. I figure the reason is boredom, burn-out, or both. We do a lousy job at giving positive reinforcement to our contributors, let alone our most valuable ones. -- llywrch (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- About "* All the serious editors are leaving": we have shown the door to homeopaths, antivaxxers, racists, religious POV-pushers, and so on. Is true that some of them did valid edits, but on the whole they could not control themselves and their presence was a danger to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has become more selective, its standards are now higher. Not everybody is fit for the job, even if it is a volunteer job. Some people could be good Wikipedians if they just avoid some topics, but they lack the self-control to avoid discussing those topics. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Additional reasons edit
To date Wikipedia has been:
- Whitewashed by "bully Social Justice Edit-warriors that violate the ethos of objective, neutral journalism"
- "Hijacked by post-modern neo-marxist ideologs" [sic]
- Responsible for the death of objectivity itself
Scary stuff! —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC) edited 06:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)