Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/Are we drying up on active users?

I just started on Wookieepedia, and I read Stake Black's interview for his WOTM. He expressed concern that their aren't enough new active users. Is he correct in being concerned? Are we low on users and just have the big dogs who are always around. Is this wiki slowly dying?Darth Pickle 2 (talk) 01:22, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

  • No. Trip391 (talk) 01:23, June 18, 2013 (UTC)
  • Confirmation from the man himself would obviously be better than my speculation, but I think that Stake was referring to the tendency for Wookieepedian of the Month noms to become snowballs, which is probably more indicative of one up-and-comer impressing a whole lot of people than it is of a drying-up userbase. There are a number of other up-and-comers who easily could have also been nominated when Stake won (some of whom have been nominated this month, some of whom will probably be nominated next month, blah blah) --- there's always new blood emerging on the site, and I don't think we've ever gotten to a month where we've all scratched our heads and said "Shit, we have no one to nominate for WOTM!" With that said, I'm one of those users who finds a little competition in a WOTM nom far more interesting than a snowball, even if it is one of the most harmless and fun votes on the site. :D

    If we do want to recruit more users, though, then edits by anonymous editors need to stop being treated like guaranteed reversions. I often see edits by anons reverted despite actually being helpful to the article, and with no reason given in the edit summary. Edits by anons aren't intrinsically wrong, and they don't exist simply to be reverted; they really need to be given the benefit of the doubt more often. Menkooroo (talk) 02:44, June 18, 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Menk's assessment. I am curious, though, how our active-user numbers have fluctuated over time. I'd hypothesize that we spiked in membership during the years of the prequels coming out, then dipped afterward. The Clone Wars may have given us a smaller spike, but that should be subsiding now. I'd expect our numbers to go up a bit more as the sequel trilogy comes closer. This is all speculation, though. I'm not sure if there is any way to measure these numbers, but perhaps some of our more technically gifted contributors can say more. ~SavageBOB sig 15:11, June 18, 2013 (UTC)
  • This wiki isn't going anywhere soon. Have you heard they're making Episodes VII, VIII, and IX? -- Riffsyphon1024 05:34, June 19, 2013 (UTC)
  • Menk is right. Although I do think the default skin scares off potentially good editors. Still, I think we'll be fine for the next decade or so. Stake black msg 02:09, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
  • Having admins and bureaucrats that are openly hostile to casual editors certainly doesn't help. SinisterSamurai (talk) 13:27, June 26, 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the concern, Sin. We are doing our best to curb that. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:24, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
  • This is actually a legitimate concern and quite a serious one. Special:WikiStats shows quite detailed stats about editor counts, and according to said page, it appears we had an activity peak around 2008-2010, with 49,000 edits made in May 2009. However, the page also shows that the amount of registered users who have made >100 edits in a month hasn't changed that much—it's been fluctuating around 30-50 for quite a while now. And the total amount of edits per month isn't that alarming, as 20,000–30,000 seems to be the norm over a long period of time.
    That said, I'm not sure why exactly these stats have so large fluctuations in certain cases, but I do believe, per Bob, that new Star Wars releases provide some kind of boosts to the stats, and it will be interesting to see the consequences of Episode VII in terms of editing on the Wook. And of course there are some things we could do to improve our user-friendliness to attract more editors to stay, but I think it's all about walking a thin line between user-friendliness and professionalism. While I'm sure blogs and article comments could add a certain appeal to Wookieepedia, it's not something I'd want to enable on the wiki—at least not in its current state. And SinSam, I'm sure you can provide some good examples of the open hostility instead of leaving it at a provoking comment, since that really doesn't help at all. :) 1358 (Talk) 08:54, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
    • This is the first time I have seen the new WikiStats, and I am discouraged by the drop in monthly users from 1,200 (around 2008) to 500 (present). That being noted, there was still a lot of missing material on the wiki during that time. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:24, July 1, 2013 (UTC)
  • Sometimes you just get burned out on Star Wars, and as a result become less active around here. Some get into Star Wars for a while then get out of it, as other interests come and go. Some get burned out because of the content in it; this is one of the things that's great (or horrible) about Wookieepedia - it puts the best and worst of Star Wars on display for everyone to see in one convenient place. Another reason I think people go is because they think Wookieepedia is a place for Wookieepedians by Wookieepedians - "If you ain't in the 'inner circle', take a hike. It's our wiki, our franchise, and if you don't like it, too bad." Whether that's an accurate assessment or not is up to you. Everyone here has different views as how this place should operate, which is a topic in and of itself, subject to heated debate. Basically, people come, people go, things happen to make both happen, and all you can do is take it for what it is. DAWUSS (talk) 16:33, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

That AND thanks to George for f**king up the entire series and leaving fans like me discouraged and duped with garbage. I hope Disney will fail HARDER then it did with the Lone Ranger then it can crumble like Rome before it. It's only a dream that may not happen but again I can dream of it.-Boba fett 32 (talk) 23:16, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

  • Let's not author bash here, please. JangFett (Talk) 15:05, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
I for one have decided to leave as I've grown tired of the cabal that certain members have formed amongst the adminship. Despite claims otherwise (there is no cabal...what a joke!) the cabal does exist as a minority within the adminship. Not so much as an organized and concerted effort to bring about a specific agenda, but rather in their shared callous attitude. Believe it!
You want an example of where my concerns are stemming from? See here, for just one example of an issue that is unprofessional in nature, detrimental to the communities image as a whole, and the type of attitude that is driving users away. Admins are supposedly voted in to administrate, but with that also comes the expectation that they represent the community professionally and in the best positive light. Seriously, this is what we supposedly get? Getting back to it...are we drying up on active users? You bet.
I once had nothing but the utmost respect for the founders of this site and the large majority of the admins, however the combative and negative attitude of the few who think they can act with impunity while continuously having their transgressions swept under the rug by their trusted few within the adminship, leaves me with little confidence that the administrators currently have the ability (or will) to deal with the troublemakers within their ranks, primarily out-of-fear for their own standing here on the wook. Users will continue to flee as issues such as these continue unopposed.
As a parting suggestion, to those who have an open mind in improving this situation, may I suggest that a stringent periodical review of the admins be put in place (perhaps annually from each users voting-in date?) by which any issues that have arisen are aired publicly as well as their contributions as a user evaluated. By this I mean that not only are they continuing to maintain a high standard of moderating, rollbacking, etc but are also actively contributing (adding content to the Wook through comprehensive, featured, good articles etc) rather than simply holding a purely bureaucratic role? In the case of an underperforming administrator, the admin would then be given a months period to lift his/her game or relinquish their admin position. Rokkur Shen (talk) 06:30, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.