predictions of the end of Wikipedia

Wikipedia is crowdsourced by a few million volunteer editors. Of the millions of registered editors, only tens of thousands contribute the majority of its contents, and a few thousand do quality control and maintenance work. As the encyclopedia expanded in the 2010s, the number of active editors did not grow in tandem. Various sources predicted that Wikipedia will eventually have too few editors to be functional and collapse from lack of participation.{{cite news|last1=Lih|first1=Andrew|author-link1=Andrew Lih |date=20 June 2015|title=Can Wikipedia Survive?|newspaper=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/can-wikipedia-survive.html|access-date=18 December 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150621032208/http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/can-wikipedia-survive.html|archive-date=21 June 2015|url-status=live}}{{cite journal |last1=Halfaker |first1=Aaron |author1-link=Aaron Halfaker |last2=Geiger |first2=R. Stuart |last3=Morgan |first3=Jonathan T. |last4=Riedl |first4=John |title=The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia's reaction to popularity is causing its decline |journal=American Behavioral Scientist |pages=664–688 |doi=10.1177/0002764212469365 |date=28 December 2012 |volume=57 |issue=5 |s2cid=144208941 |url=https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/halfaker13rise-preprint.pdf |access-date=6 December 2023 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170830004724/http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/halfaker13rise-preprint.pdf |archive-date=30 August 2017}}{{void|Fabrickator|alternate link: https://stuartgeiger.com/papers/abs-rise-and-decline-wikipedia.pdf}}{{cbignore}}{{cite web |last1=Chen |first1=Adrian |date=4 August 2011 |title=Wikipedia Is Slowly Dying |url=http://gawker.com/5827835/wikipedia-is-slowly-dying |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171018191310/http://gawker.com/5827835/wikipedia-is-slowly-dying |archive-date=18 October 2017 |access-date=23 October 2017 |website=Gawker}}{{cite news|last1=Brown|first1=Andrew|date=25 June 2015|title=Wikipedia editors are a dying breed. The reason? Mobile|newspaper=The Guardian|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/25/wikipedia-editors-dying-breed-mobile-smartphone-technology-online-encyclopedia |access-date=29 April 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190416013908/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/25/wikipedia-editors-dying-breed-mobile-smartphone-technology-online-encyclopedia |archive-date=16 April 2019|url-status=live}}{{cite web|last1=Angwin|first1=Julia|author1-link=Julia Angwin|last2=Fowler |first2=Geoffrey A.|title=Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages|newspaper=Wall Street Journal|date=27 November 2009|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB125893981183759969|access-date=23 October 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171025060009/https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB125893981183759969|archive-date=25 October 2017|url-status=live}}{{cite magazine|last1=Derakhshan|first1=Hossein|title=How Social Media Endangers Knowledge|url=https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedias-fate-shows-how-the-web-endangers-knowledge/|magazine=Wired|date=19 October 2017|access-date=23 October 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181022190537/https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedias-fate-shows-how-the-web-endangers-knowledge/|archive-date=22 October 2018|url-status=live}}{{Excessive citations inline|date=February 2024}}

English Wikipedia has {{NUMBEROF|admins|en|N}} volunteer administrators who perform various functions, including functions similar to those carried out by a forum moderator. Critics have described their actions as harsh, bureaucratic, biased, unfair, or capricious and predicted that the resulting outrage would lead to the site's closure.{{cite web|last1=James |first1=Andrea|date=14 February 2017 |title=Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance|website=Boing Boing|url=https://boingboing.net/2017/02/14/watching-wikipedias-extincti.html|access-date=23 October 2017|url-status=live|archive-date=24 October 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171024043304/https://boingboing.net/2017/02/14/watching-wikipedias-extincti.html}}{{cite web|last1=Carr|first1=Nicholas G.|author-link1=Nicholas G. Carr|title=The death of Wikipedia|url=http://www.roughtype.com/?p=394|website=ROUGH TYPE|date=24 May 2006|access-date=23 October 2017|url-status=live|archive-date=24 October 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171024043349/http://www.roughtype.com/?p=394}}

Various 2012 articles reported that a decline in English Wikipedia's recruitment of new administrators could end Wikipedia.{{cite web |last1=Meyer |first1=Robinson |title=3 Charts That Show How Wikipedia Is Running Out of Admins |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/3-charts-that-show-how-wikipedia-is-running-out-of-admins/259829/ |work=The Atlantic |date=16 July 2012 |access-date=30 June 2019 |url-status=live |archive-date=28 March 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170328195049/https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/3-charts-that-show-how-wikipedia-is-running-out-of-admins/259829/}}{{cite web |last1=Henderson |first1=William |date=5 September 2012 |title=Wikipedia reaches a turning point: it's losing administrators faster than it can appoint them |url=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/williamhenderson/100007494/wikipedia-reaches-a-turning-point-its-losing-administrators-faster-than-it-can-appoint-them/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121204222243/http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/williamhenderson/100007494/wikipedia-reaches-a-turning-point-its-losing-administrators-faster-than-it-can-appoint-them/ |archive-date=4 December 2012 |access-date=30 June 2019 |website=The Telegraph}}

{{Wikipedia editor graph}}

A 2014 trend analysis published in The Economist stated that "The number of editors for the English-language version has fallen by a third in seven years."{{cite news |url=https://www.economist.com/news/international/21597959-popular-online-encyclopedia-must-work-out-what-next-wikipeaks |title=The future of Wikipedia: WikiPeaks? |newspaper=The Economist |date=March 1, 2014 |access-date=March 11, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140408202455/http://www.economist.com/news/international/21597959-popular-online-encyclopedia-must-work-out-what-next-wikipeaks |archive-date=April 8, 2014 |url-status=live }} The attrition rate for active editors in English Wikipedia was described by The Economist as substantially higher than in other (non-English Wikipedias). It reported that in other languages, the number of "active editors" (those with at least five edits per month) has been relatively constant since 2008: some 42,000 editors, with narrow seasonal variances of about 2,000 editors up or down.

In the English Wikipedia, the number of active editors peaked in 2007 at about 50,000 editors, and fell to 30,000 editors in 2014.

Given that the trend analysis published in The Economist presented the number of active editors for Wikipedia in other languages (non-English Wikipedia) as remaining relatively constant, sustaining their numbers at approximately 42,000 active editors, the contrast pointed to the effectiveness of Wikipedia in those languages to retain their active editors on a renewable and sustained basis. Though different language versions of Wikipedia have different policies, no comment identified a particular policy difference as potentially making a difference in the rate of editor attrition for English Wikipedia.Andrew Lih. Wikipedia. Alternative edit policies at Wikipedia in other languages. Editor count showed a slight uptick a year later, and no clear trend after that.

In a 2013 article, Tom Simonite of MIT Technology Review said that for several years running, the number of Wikipedia editors had been falling, and cited the bureaucratic structure and rules as a factor. Simonite alleged that some Wikipedians use the labyrinthine rules and guidelines to dominate others and have a vested interest in keeping the status quo.{{cite journal |last=Simonite |first=Tom |url=http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ |title=The Decline of Wikipedia |date=October 22, 2013 |journal=MIT Technology Review |access-date=November 30, 2013 |archive-url=https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20150619205842/http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ |archive-date=June 19, 2015 |url-status=live }} A January 2016 article in Time by Chris Wilson said Wikipedia might lose many editors because a collaboration of occasional editors and smart software will take the lead.{{cite magazine|last1=Wilson|first1=Chris |date=January 14, 2016 |title=Why Wikipedia Is in Trouble|magazine=Time |url=https://time.com/4180414/wikipedia-15th-anniversary/|access-date=June 22, 2021}}

Andrew Lih and Andrew Brown both maintain editing Wikipedia with smartphones is difficult and discourages new potential contributors. Lih alleges there is serious disagreement among existing contributors on how to resolve this. In 2015 Lih feared for Wikipedia's long-term future while Brown feared problems with Wikipedia would remain and rival encyclopedias would not replace it.

As of 2015, with more viewing by smartphones, there had been a marked decline in persons who viewed Wikipedia from their computers, and according to The Washington Post "[people are] far less likely to donate".{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/02/wikipedia-has-a-ton-of-money-so-why-is-it-begging-you-to-donate-yours/ |date=December 2, 2015 |first1=Caitlin |last1=Dewey |title=Internet Culture: Wikipedia has a ton of money. So why is it begging you to donate yours? |newspaper=Washington Post |access-date=December 8, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180710021353/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/02/wikipedia-has-a-ton-of-money-so-why-is-it-begging-you-to-donate-yours/ |archive-date=July 10, 2018 |url-status=live }} At the time, the Wikimedia Foundation reported reserves equivalent to one year's budgeted expenditures. On the other hand, the number of paid staff had ballooned, so those expenses increased.

In 2021, Andreas Kolbe, a former co-editor-in-chief of The Signpost, wrote that the Wikimedia Foundation was reaching its 10-year goal of a {{Usd|100 million}} endowment, five years earlier than planned, which may surprise donors and users around the world who regularly see Wikipedia fundraising banners. He also said accounting methods disguise the size of operating surpluses, top managers earn {{Usd|300,000 – 400,000|long=no}} a year, and over 40 people work exclusively on fundraising.{{Cite web |last=Kolbe |first=Andreas |date=2021-05-24 |title=Wikipedia is swimming in money—why is it begging people to donate? |url=https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundraising/ |access-date=2023-02-12 |website=The Daily Dot |language=en-US}}

On the eve of the 20th anniversary of Wikipedia, associate professor of the Department of Communication Studies at Northeastern University Joseph Reagle conducted a retrospective study of numerous "predictions of the ends of Wikipedia" over two decades, divided into chronological waves: "Early growth (2001–2002)", "Nascent identity (2001–2005)", "Production model (2005–2010)", "Contributor attrition (2009–2017)" and the current period "(2020)". Each wave brought its distinctive fatal predictions, which never came true; as a result, Reagle concluded Wikipedia was not in danger.Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-11-01/In focus

Concern grew in 2023 that the ubiquity and proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) may adversely affect Wikipedia. Rapid improvements and widespread application of AI may render Wikipedia obsolete, or at least reduce its importance. Academic research in 2023 found that AI, when applied to Wikipedia, works most efficiently for error-correction, while Wikipedia still needs to be written by humans.{{cite journal |last1=Petroni |first1=Fabio |last2=Broscheit |first2=Samuel |last3=Piktus |first3=Aleksandra |last4=Lewis |first4=Patrick |last5=Izacard |first5=Gautier |last6=Hosseini |first6=Lucas |last7=Dwivedi-Yu |first7=Jane |last8=Lomeli |first8=Maria |last9=Schick |first9=Timo |last10=Bevilacqua |first10=Michele |last11=Mazaré |first11=Pierre-Emmanuel |last12=Joulin |first12=Armand |last13=Grave |first13=Edouard |last14=Riedel |first14=Sebastian |title=Improving Wikipedia verifiability with AI |journal=Nature Machine Intelligence |date=October 2023 |volume=5 |issue=10 |pages=1142–1148 |doi=10.1038/s42256-023-00726-1 |s2cid=250491944 |doi-access=free |arxiv=2207.06220 }}

• Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia
• Wikipedia Zero

{{reflist}}

• Gertner, Jon. (2023) "Wikipedia's Moment of Truth: Can the online encyclopedia help teach A.I. chatbots to get their facts right — without destroying itself in the process?" New York Times Magazine (July 18, 2023) [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/18/magazine/wikipedia-ai-chatgpt.html online]

• {{cite book |first1=Andrew |last1=Lih |author-link1=Andrew Lih |title=The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World's Greatest Encyclopedia |year=2009 |publisher=Hachette Books |isbn=978-1401395858}}
• {{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-Iw5AwAAQBAJ |title=Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia |first1=Dariusz |last1=Jemielniak |author-link1=Dariusz Jemielniak |isbn=978-0804791205 |year=2014|publisher=Stanford University Press }}
• WP:THREATENING2MEN {{cite journal |url=http://adanewmedia.org/2015/04/issue7-peake/ |issue=7 |title=WP:THREATENING2MEN: Misogynist Infopolitics and the Hegemony of the Asshole Consensus on English Wikipedia |first1=Bryce |last1=Peake |author-link1=User:Thebrycepeake |journal=Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology |year=2015 |doi=10.7264/N3TH8JZS |doi-broken-date=2 November 2024 |access-date=2020-02-16 |archive-date=2020-02-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200212194427/https://adanewmedia.org/2015/04/issue7-peake/ |url-status=dead }}
• {{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ml7SlTq8XvIC&pg=PR8 |title=Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia |first1=Joseph Michael |last1=Reagle |first2=Lawrence |last2=Lessig |publisher=The MIT Press |year= 2010 |isbn=978-0262288705 }}
• {{cite book |last1=Reagle |first1=Joseph |author1-link=Joseph M. Reagle Jr. |editor1-last=Jackie |editor1-first=Koerner |title=Wikipedia @ 20 |publisher=The MIT Press |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts |isbn=9780262538176 |page=9 |url=https://wikipedia20.pubpub.org/pub/l59g0pbd/release/1 |access-date=4 December 2021 |chapter=The Many (Reported) Deaths of Wikipedia|date=15 October 2020 }}
• {{cite book |title=A Case Study of Sockpuppet Detection in Wikipedia |first1=Thamar |last1=Solorio |first2=Ragib |last2=Hasan |first3=Mainul |last3=Mizan |publisher=The University of Alabama at Birmingham |url=https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W13-1107.pdf }}

{{Wikipedia}}

Category:Criticism of Wikipedia

Category:Mass media disestablishments

Category:Prediction