Comments on: Wikipedia as a Bottom-Up Process

By: Ulises Pabon

Ulises Pabon — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 06:19:12 +0000

Ironically, Bottom-Up developments are not independent of Top-Down systems; although a “chicken and the egg” debate ensues when trying to understand how they come into being. For some related ideas on Bottom-Up Innovation check out http://bottomupinnovation.blogspot.com/ The latest entry discusses Bottom-Up versus Top-Down within the context of the organization’s life cycle, suggesting both a diagnosis as well as a prescription for Wikipedia’s future.

By: Rhayader

Rhayader — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:41:07 +0000

The bottom line is that Wikipedia is becoming an establishment where newcomers have a harder time making a contribution (and having it stick) than it was in the past.

Right but that doesn’t necessarily turn it into a “top-down” process. To go back to the coral reef analogy, a mature reef will hardly be impacted at all by any individual organism. This doesn’t change the fact that said reef owes its very existence to a huge number of individual organisms. A matured, calcified bottom-up process is still a bottom-up process.

By: Bill Zeller

Bill Zeller — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 07:05:48 +0000

A few essays on Wikipedia by Jason Scott:

http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/808
http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/814
http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1062

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:27:00 +0000

Here you go: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17554-after-the-boom-is-wikipedia-heading-for-bust.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 03:17:30 +0000

I don’t remember where, but I read some figures about Wikipedia in the past few days. It was probably on Venture Beat, Techcrunch, or GigaOm since I read most of them every day. They were saying that there are many fewer new articles/month than in the past, which stands to reason as there has to be a flattening out at some point. They also said there is a lot more tussle with edits being reverted, as the regulars are spending more time protecting the old stuff than creating new stuff.

The bottom line is that Wikipedia is becoming an establishment where newcomers have a harder time making a contribution (and having it stick) than it was in the past.

By: Timothy B Lee

Timothy B Lee — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:08:50 +0000

Richard,

Do you have any data on this? Certainly Wikipedia has an editing hierarchy with Jimbo at the top. But the key question is what fraction of the editing does Jimbo or the arbitration committee get involved in. My sense is it’s a very, very small fraction, but I’ve never seen any hard evidence one way or the other.

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:04:35 +0000

This is all true, but the evidence is mounting that Wikipedia is becoming more top-down as fewer new articles are being written and core group of admins and freaks spend more time polishing the stuff that’s already there.

There is a strong editorial function at work in all network-based collaborations that amount to anything. Linux has had a couple of guys who weed out all the crap, and there’s certainly an enormous editing function behind Wikipedia which ultimately resolves conflict with a “Jimbo says so” rule.