i would say look at the article on imane khelif (there is proof khelif is male!) to disprove the idea anyone can edit. they have blatant lies in the text so as to enforce an ideological agenda. and not only can no one edit it, no one can even discuss why it cant be edited
This article seems to make gross over generalizations about Gen Z’s opinion on open source contributing and their complacency (and zealous endorsement from your description) to the hyper capitalist hellscape that is the internet today.
The factual basis of these generalities seems weak and it ignores the real work done by thousands of hard working young people on many open source style projects every day (all of which are unpaid).
Things such as influencers and sponsored content are somehow connected to skepticism towards doing volunteer work? …bonkers
Do you think scientists work for the money? Do you think great artists or musicians are all in pursuit of the next paycheck?
I found this article deeply ignorant (or lazy) and I’m troubled that you would publish it to describe Wikipedias current situation.
Maybe you’re the one chasing dollars and cents with these clickbait articles rather than taking the time to understand the issues and inspire hope for the next generation…
Thanks for the comment, cadtoolenjoyer. Are you a Gen Z Wikimedian by chance? It would be good to interview you for a future piece, if so.
I disagree that the WIRED article made gross generalizations about Gen Z. If anything, it made no generalizations, saying in essence "it could be this, it could be that, depending on one's perspective."
First, a clarification: I do *not* believe that Gen Z is complacent or endorsing of the hyper capitalist hellscape that is the internet today. In fact, I suspect that Gen Z may be the most frustrated by the internet's current state. My point was simply that Gen Z has grown up with a very different internet. In the late 2000s, for example, there was not the social pressure to monetize your content and make money through the internet. By contrast, that's the message that Gen Z users have gotten since they first came online.
I agree with you that scientists, artists, musicians, writers, and Wikipedia editors are not doing their work because they are in pursuit of the next paycheck. They do it because the find the work meaningful. Since you mentioned it, I'm not covering Wikipedia as a journalist because I'm pursuing the big bucks. (I would be making less than a minimum hourly wage, if that were the case.) This article happened because WIRED asked if I could write something short about the major challenges faced by Wikipedia, so I started interviewing folks.
Again, the issue as I see it is cultural, and no specific generational cohort is to blame. Forty years ago, artists and musicians and creators of all sorts were told "don't be a sell out." Nowadays, the online message is "don't be a sucker, sell out!" For people with a high degree of intrinsic interest, that pressure won't dissuade them. At the same time, I suspect the social pressure to monetize *does* siphon off some people or encourage them to pursue other things.
Overall, your comment suggests we need some cultural counter-messaging to the "sell out" message. I agree with that, but inspiring hope in others is a different job than reporting on Wikipedia's current state. That said, I do try to report on the hopeful perspective when it comes up because I'm trying to present the subject fairly. I'm sure that WIRED would prefer a headline like "Wikipedia Is About to Die" for page views, but I would never allow that because that description doesn't reflect the underlying facts.
Thanks again for this comment, which allowed me to reflect on and articulate a few more ideas.
i would say look at the article on imane khelif (there is proof khelif is male!) to disprove the idea anyone can edit. they have blatant lies in the text so as to enforce an ideological agenda. and not only can no one edit it, no one can even discuss why it cant be edited
This article seems to make gross over generalizations about Gen Z’s opinion on open source contributing and their complacency (and zealous endorsement from your description) to the hyper capitalist hellscape that is the internet today.
The factual basis of these generalities seems weak and it ignores the real work done by thousands of hard working young people on many open source style projects every day (all of which are unpaid).
Things such as influencers and sponsored content are somehow connected to skepticism towards doing volunteer work? …bonkers
Do you think scientists work for the money? Do you think great artists or musicians are all in pursuit of the next paycheck?
I found this article deeply ignorant (or lazy) and I’m troubled that you would publish it to describe Wikipedias current situation.
Maybe you’re the one chasing dollars and cents with these clickbait articles rather than taking the time to understand the issues and inspire hope for the next generation…
Thanks for the comment, cadtoolenjoyer. Are you a Gen Z Wikimedian by chance? It would be good to interview you for a future piece, if so.
I disagree that the WIRED article made gross generalizations about Gen Z. If anything, it made no generalizations, saying in essence "it could be this, it could be that, depending on one's perspective."
First, a clarification: I do *not* believe that Gen Z is complacent or endorsing of the hyper capitalist hellscape that is the internet today. In fact, I suspect that Gen Z may be the most frustrated by the internet's current state. My point was simply that Gen Z has grown up with a very different internet. In the late 2000s, for example, there was not the social pressure to monetize your content and make money through the internet. By contrast, that's the message that Gen Z users have gotten since they first came online.
I agree with you that scientists, artists, musicians, writers, and Wikipedia editors are not doing their work because they are in pursuit of the next paycheck. They do it because the find the work meaningful. Since you mentioned it, I'm not covering Wikipedia as a journalist because I'm pursuing the big bucks. (I would be making less than a minimum hourly wage, if that were the case.) This article happened because WIRED asked if I could write something short about the major challenges faced by Wikipedia, so I started interviewing folks.
Again, the issue as I see it is cultural, and no specific generational cohort is to blame. Forty years ago, artists and musicians and creators of all sorts were told "don't be a sell out." Nowadays, the online message is "don't be a sucker, sell out!" For people with a high degree of intrinsic interest, that pressure won't dissuade them. At the same time, I suspect the social pressure to monetize *does* siphon off some people or encourage them to pursue other things.
Overall, your comment suggests we need some cultural counter-messaging to the "sell out" message. I agree with that, but inspiring hope in others is a different job than reporting on Wikipedia's current state. That said, I do try to report on the hopeful perspective when it comes up because I'm trying to present the subject fairly. I'm sure that WIRED would prefer a headline like "Wikipedia Is About to Die" for page views, but I would never allow that because that description doesn't reflect the underlying facts.
Thanks again for this comment, which allowed me to reflect on and articulate a few more ideas.