I think the title "Who Killed Wikipedia" is alarmist and doesn't accurately sum up the article. The writer does not conclude that Wikipedia is dead, and does a good job discussing the strengths and some of the weaknesses of our project. It is well worth reading. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Who Killed Wikipedia" is the title of the article, so I would argue that the Pacific Standard is the entity that is alarmist & not Signpost. Peaceray (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And nowhere did you specifically state that you were referring to the Pacific Standard's title, either. In the context of your comment, then, it was ambiguous as to whether you were referring to the the Signpost review of "Who Killed Wikipedia?" or the original article, "Who Killed Wikipedia?", as both share the same title. Please forgive me, Cullen328, if I thus unintentionally took it the wrong way. Peaceray (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although I have heard it mentioned occasionally, I do not think that there has been much discussion of the elephant in the room. Facebook has had a huge growth over the time period that the number of Wikipedia editors has slowly declined. Also of note is that most Facebook users are female in contrast to our editor base. I would suggest that many would-be & former editors spend their time instead on Facebook, where they seldom have to worry about reverts to their edits. I am in no way suggesting that we reduce reverts, but I would also suggest that we would need to develop something like the mutual support that social media provides --- in the non-article space, of course. Peaceray (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Who Killed Wikipedia" rehashes some old news as punditry. I can't take Jemielniak seriously, having heard him talk at Wikimania in 2012 (bad historian, and very poor judgement). The "five pillars" are also not to be taken seriously now, being most relevant to what people thought some eight years ago was going on; and the trick of taking your baseline measurement (editor numbers at their peak seven years ago) is not a creditable one. Has anyone noticed how much better the encyclopedia is now than then? No comparison. Fundamentally, the work is easier to do now, with 20 million images on Commons, tools, templates, more reliable sources online and so on. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
