Morning:
2°c
The usefulness of Wikipedia could be under threat after researchers found that thousands of contributors had deserted the internet encyclopaedia.
The English-language version of the site suffered a net loss of 49,000 volunteer "editors" in the first three months of this year, compared with 4,900 for the same period a year earlier, according to a university study.
This is believed to be a result of increased bureaucracy to prevent errors - such as the death of Edward Kennedy being announced prematurely - and the sense that Wikipedia is now part of the establishment.
Founded in 2001 by Jimmy Wales, it has become the fifth most popular website in the world with about 325million visits a month.
It allows registered users to modify entries but this leaves it open to abuse.
Felipe Ortega, of the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in Madrid, told The Times: "If you don't have enough people to take care of the project it could vanish quickly. We're not in that situation yet. But eventually, if the negative trends follow, we could be.
"The articles are very tightly controlled by others now, and that makes it hard to jump in and contribute."
Reader views (9)
Wikipedia is dominated by cliques who do not appreciate the values of Web-2. Articles are repeatedly stripped of information that is damaging to positions that are protected by interested parties.
Idealism is great until you involve human beings! 
- Chris Brown, Ottawa, Canada, 26/11/2009 15:24
Report abuse
Unfordunaly editing means that there will be a bias in favour of teh culture of the Editors. So if white Anglo-Saxon American then I would expect a strong bias towards a Christian, business Ethic. if the editors are predominatly Eco friendly types I would expect that car entries will be significantly curtailed witha bias toward organic production.
My guess is that this will be mostly edited by Americans who have a tendency to re-write history in their favour minimising input from other countries.
The problem with any editing is that by limiting what is said bias can be generated.
- Jan, London, 26/11/2009 10:04
Report abuse
The thing is, Michael, you don't know the editor from Adam either. I think you and Kate have come off rather badly: there should be a means whereby Wikipedia recognises expertise, but it's based on the concept, as Nick Davies has called it, of 'wikiality', ie truth by concensus.
- Terry Freedman, Ilford, Essex, UK, 26/11/2009 00:17
Report abuse
Agree with Kate, Gwaddilove, Lester Ralph & Michael.
I only tried a few times to correct things, although I have seen more inaccuracies. A couple of the things I tried to correct were trivial football facts regarding matches I had been to & written the details down on the programme, and one technical fact regarding the area I worked in - and each time my addendum was deleted.
A great idea - and wonderful for linking through interesting trivia - but absolutely useless for finding anything of any degree of seriousness or importance, as it's just so unreliable and open to abuse it's impossible to know the accuracy of what you're reading.
- John T, London, 26/11/2009 00:10
Report abuse
I had a similar issue to Kate - I was correcting a biography of someone I knew well, who was sick and tired of the same basic errors getting repeated from article to article (because journalists/interviewers basically copied stuff across from their predecessors), but who didn't want to commit the cardinal vanity-sin of being caught editing his own entry. So he asked me to do it.
Unfortunately, all my changes were reverted, and when I asked why, I was told that the horse's mouth was considered a less reliable source than a printed third-party reference, so the errors remain.
I can see their argument to a certain extent, because they don't know me from Adam and have no way of proving that I'm legitimate - but since I am, and was genuinely trying to improve the site, it's a pretty fundamental flaw in the way Wikipedia is put together.
- Michael, London, 25/11/2009 12:49
Report abuse
Another reason is that Wikipedia practises blatant censorship, and deletes whole articles on things it doesn't like.
- Ralph, London, 25/11/2009 12:22
Report abuse
Wikipedia is still an extremely useful resource, where there is much that just is not readily available elsewhere. One can't add items of historical value to a Blog and expect to build on it there.
Nevertheless, some of the Wiki police would have done well in the Communist World or Third Reich with their pettiness - how I loathe petty bureaucrats, more interested in process than outcomes!
Wikipedia should relax, encourage contributors and make sure it stays popular, user-friendly and contributor friendly - and useful.
Those idiots who write anything that is not truthful, honest and fact are akin to someone tearing a page out of a reference book in the library: pathetic morons!
- Lester May, London, 25/11/2009 11:55
Report abuse
Full of inaccuracies impossible to correct!
- Gwaddilove, London..England, 25/11/2009 11:38
Report abuse
This is true. I used to contribute, but gave up when my postings were deleted because some anonymous editor decided there were insufficient external references to validate the postings. The whole point of Wikipedia was lost, and I make my contributions to various specialist blogs instead.
- Kate, London, 25/11/2009 10:31
Report abuse
