Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

As the set of information encoded into Wikipedia approaches the sum total of human knowledge, there's no particular reason that needs to remain true.


> As the set of information encoded into Wikipedia approaches the sum total of human knowledge

An outcome Wikipedia will never get close to. They'll never reach 1% of the way there. Closer to 0% of human knowledge gets recorded, rather than closer to 1%. Of the knowledge that is recorded, a small fraction of it will end up on Wikipedia. Most of what gets recorded is universal or widely experienced knowledge, which is a miniscule subset of "the sum total of human knowledge."

Wikipedia has already begun to stagnate badly. For the most part, it's over. That's why they're attempting Abstract Wikipedia now (aka another round of the failed insular semantic Web for elite Wiki nerds that won't accomplish much of anything for the average reader that wants to learn something); and it's why Wikimedia wants to rebrand itself to Wikipedia; and it's why their system is being overtaken by partisan politics (as momentum continues to decline the system will rot and pull apart in various negative ways at an accelerating clip). The growth is running out, and the Wiki bureaucracy wants to keep expanding, that's what this is about.


> They'll never reach 1% of the way there

> Closer to 0% of human knowledge gets recorded

> Wikipedia has already begun to stagnate badly

Anything more concrete you can link to for further reading on this? I understand the difficulty in quantifying such claims and measures but I'd appreciate reading something that attempts to do so objectively.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: