Updated 20-Sep-2023

It is safe to say that the current Wikipedia is slowly dying a death by atrophy. Due to Google algorithms, the death is slow. Nevertheless it currently has a lot of information that is interesting and important (and of course a lot that is trivial and wrong). So, what better system might there be to salvage the good and prevent its destruction? This is a question for the ages, though we don't have ages to deal with it. I have experienced two frustrating interactions with Wikipedia within a single month. Since I am only an infrequent contributor, usually only when something arises, this is strange and bewildering. Both are about editors who simply revert. And these are the big editors, admins with power. In each case there is a gang of two of them overseeing the great and grand work of reverting edits.

Some Notes

This article is currently undergoing edits, kindly be patient, or perhaps tweet a suggestion to - http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ - http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/07/21/wikipedia-will-ban-you-for-criticising-wikipedia/ - http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/ - I created a Wikipedia account on 27 March 2005 - Over a dozen created articles - Over a thousand edits - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beeblebrox/The_unblockables - Don't bite the Newbie https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2038585 - Editor Productivity https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Editor_productivity#cite_ref-halfaker11dont_1-0 - Measuring Value-Add https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Measuring_value-added - Especially "Accept, Decline, Postpone" http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/