Talk:Predictions of the end of Wikipedia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Possible related links or information to incoporate[edit]

I thought it might be worth menionting these existing meta pages here. They seem related to predictions of the community and project's demise.

Ckoerner (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless I think that spending by the WMF should be vetted here. I understand the criticism in the edit summary; but the subject is important. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moderators?[edit]

By moderators do we mean admins? Imo using the word "moderator" misrepresents the role of sysops in the community, and gives the impression of some hierarchy. --George AKA Caliburn · (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 17:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Another article that may be of interest[edit]

The article Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Discovered reasons given for leaving Wikipedia may be of interest to readers of this website. Vorbee (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actual prediction[edit]

It'd be useful if this page included actual predications, like that of Goldman's prediction that WP would fail by 2010. -Reagle (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is that family of articles. They look like blog posts so these might not pass reliable sources guidelines.
  • Goldman, Eric (5 December 2005). "Wikipedia Will Fail Within 5 Years". Technology & Marketing Law Blog.
  • Goldman, Eric (5 December 2006). "Wikipedia Will Fail in Four Years". Technology & Marketing Law Blog.
  • Mike, Godwin (6 Dec 2005). "Will Wikipedia Fail in Five Years?". Godwin's Law. Archived from the original on 19 January 2007.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with "Decline in editors" section[edit]

This section states and seemingly summarizes a "trend analysis" from The Economist. However, the publication was simply covering quotes among others, including the Foundation, and performed no original research. The 2021 conjecture is not in the article and is WP:OR. -Reagle (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Needs update anyway Zezen (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia[edit]

When the article, at the end of the second paragraph, lists proposed replacements for Wikipedia, should it mention Conservapedia? Vorbee (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vorbee: Can you find a third party source for this, as with those other examples? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

note re section[edit]

I appreciate the insights in the section Predictions_of_the_end_of_Wikipedia#Decline_in_editors. I appreciate editor Moxy's link and comments for bringing me here. I look forward to further discussions of this topic, which we can all find ways to think about. thanks very much!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war[edit]

7&6=thirteen, Deacon Vorbis, Right cite, Normal Op: I have fully protected the page due to the edit war. You're all experienced enough here to be familiar with WP:BRD. Talk it out, please. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It WAS discussed... at AfD. Decision made. Normal Op (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the closer seems to think this much should be discussed outside of AfD, which seems...duplicative. There was a clear consensus at AfD not to keep as an article. I was already going to list this for DRV at this point (probably after a couple days because of a particularly contentious listing there right now). No further protection is really needed. I had no plans to revert again. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GeneralNotability, thank you, I started the merger discussion to assess community input, as notified, below. Right cite (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Predictions of the end of Wikipedia[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Predictions of the end of Wikipedia—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Right cite (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A better merge target, and the one suggest by the deletion debate is Criticism of Wikipedia.
That's a what a prediction of wikipedia's death is, a criticism of wikipedia. ApLundell (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ApLundell: Not necessarily. You could predict ending somehow without that being a criticism, although the two do somewhat overlap Naleksuh (talk) 07:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You could, but, in practice, when you're talking about a project that's intended to be long-term, there's not much difference. ApLundell (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A useful essay that is in user space[edit]

Nevertheless I think that spending by the WMF should be vetted here. I understand the criticism in the edit summary; but the subject is important. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The many (reported) deaths of Wikipedia[edit]

From an October 2020 book and republished in this month's issue of The Signpost-

Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Never noticed this article before until it's deletion debate......this was a great read. Anyone remember where the interview was with Jimbo talking about if Wikipedia were to end tomorrow he's happy that the free information gather here over a decade has already disseminated throughout the world and reuse in multiple other databases and websites. Wasn't saying the goal of the project has been meet.... but it has gone Way Beyond any of his expectations. I thought it was Ted talk but I can't find it.--Moxy 🍁 02:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge target[edit]

Seems like the vast majority of this content, pertaining primarily to editor activity, should be covered within Wikipedia community. Once the relevant content is duplicated or merged there, I wonder what would be left to justify this separate article. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 05:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Needs section on Adminship decline[edit]

I feel like a much more urgent issue than the amount of active users is the amount of administrators. We have a chart for the former in the article, but File:Yearly change in number of admins on the English Wikipedia.png and everything it implies isn't discussed much in the article despite being arguably our largest threat - adminship decline gets a single line. Many problems like CCI already don't have admins enough to handle, and haven't had for a long time. Does anyone know of good independent sources that discuss this problem? AFAIK, good administrators are on the IUCN Red List and we need to do more. YuriNikolai (talk) 03:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "Various 2012 articles reported that a decline in English Wikipedia's recruitment of new administrators could end Wikipedia." Here we are in 2021 and this clearly hasn't happened. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Complex systems like Wikipedia either decline and then collapse abruptly or decline very slowly over a long period of time. Just because Wikipedia has been here for 20 years, may not mean that it will be around 20 years from now. Of course, that isn't to say that complex systems don't survive after undergoing some form of evolution, so it's entirely possible that in the year 2070, Wikipedia is still here, but I wouldn't bet money on that. Chantern15 (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15[reply]
How do you imagine "absence of Wikipedia"? It just can't be unexistent. Only if internet-disabling mass cataclysm would happen. In this case, Wikipedia is of relatively (but not completely) low importance. --ssr (talk) 05:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An obvious slow way for Wikipedia to decline is, search engines slowly become better, synthesizing information to fit the enquirer's intent and the time precisely. Like having a team of smart, quick, attentive, and well-informed personal researchers on staff. Then, no need for anyone to edit an encyclopedia ahead of time. Some day. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Barkeep49's essay[edit]

I agree with this - these are good starting points for a journalist or researcher. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should video be embedded?[edit]

The discussion video embedded in this article is over an hour long, and does not fit into any of the four types of video listed in Wikipedia:Videos. I don't believe I've seen any other article with such a long piece of content embedded directly. Should this article be amended to link to an archived version of this video discussion elsewhere? EditorOnOccasion (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Predictions_of_the_end_of_Wikipedia&oldid=1209858280"