This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Predictions of the end of Wikipedia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article was nominated for merging with Wikipedia on 11 October 2020. The result of the discussion was weak consensus against merge. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Needs update anyway Zezen (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
From an October 2020 book and republished in this month's issue of The Signpost-
Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I agree with this - these are good starting points for a journalist or researcher. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
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)