User:Slowking4/the Wikinews scenario

“Tell Me Where I’m Going To Die, So I Won’t Go There” [1].

warning

English wikinews is a failed wiki. it is a cautionary tale, for any observant crowdsource leader.

properties

wikinews has very little activity. it has few admins who review, and template all proposed stories. it is proscriptive direction, and not peer collaboration. few people write there.

rather, professional journalists, and journalism professors, go edit breaking news stories at wikipedia, or write news stories on the wikimedia blog, wikitribune, or at signpost. they will not edit at wikinews.

some believe that breaking news cannot be done on a wiki. i would suggest, it is the toxic leadership that prevents it. there is sufficient scope of work, if a critical mass of story writers could be led.

wikinews did not get any respect. there were attempts to close it down.

wikipedia going there

wikipedia has declining activity on-wiki. new editors are templated; new articles are routinely rejected at AfC.

initiatives to add quality content are organized off-line: editathons; Wikiproject Women in Red; #1lib1ref.

this will be the future. admins will bite at a decreasing editor base, with even more tools. backlogs will increase, as more dysfunctional processes are imposed, with more drama and temper tantrums to force action on backlogs. there is little effort to welcome newbies, (teahouse is maintained but unsupported)

Dark forest

attempts to improve content will be sporadic and interest group based. circles of civility and productivity will make progress, but it will be against a tide of systematic rejection

In an unhealthy community, the silence is a sign of danger, as the wary bide their time to get work done, without interacting with the threats.

Technology’s dark forest, techcrunch
The internet has become a dark forest, Gregory Bufithis
The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet, Yancey Strickler