Talk:Wikipedia/Activity

This is an article?

Wow. Is this an encyclopedia article or an op-ed? —Tom Morris (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be a subpage of Wikipedia or incorporated into that article. As it stands, it's clearly not an article in its own right, and that's before we get into any other issues with it. John Stephenson 21:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That was my thought too. Peter Jackson 15:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll vote for that. Ro Thorpe 18:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, /Addendum might be possible, or an article-specific subpage perhaps called '/Activity'. John Stephenson 16:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I like /Activity. Of course that would mean that the article would have to also include information from 2001-2005, but this being a wiki that can be done at anytime. James Yolkowski 21:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The novelty has worn off, and there are little or no new worlds to conquer

Is the point at which something is ready to be finished the point at which it is no longer interesting?

"To conceive and idea is noble; to execute the work is servile." Leonardo da Vinci. Robert A. Estremo 03:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I find the edits I do there are almost always niggles of one kind or another these days. Ro Thorpe 18:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed explanations

The proposed explanations in this section are all speculation, and in my own opinion, are lame, provinding various insubstantial excuses for Wikipedians to ignore the data.

(i) decline is a symptom of Wikipedia's success. An exponentially rising phenomena naturally rolls off eventually in a sigmoid curve. It does not abruptly reverse slope.

(ii) culture and infrastructure have become more closed and less accepting of new users over time. True. But, again, a gradual increase in barriers to contribution does not explain an abrupt reversal in activity.

(iii) long-term editors are being driven off by excessive conflict and friction. While this statement is entirely factual, IMO, it also does not explain the suddenness of change.

(iv) many more things to do on the Internet. Again, undeniable, but cannot explain a sudden reversal.

These speculations distract from purpose of the article, which is intended to present simply some factual data. There is no need to present various half-baked theories. John R. Brews 16:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)