According to Julia Angwin and Geoffrey Fowler of The Wall Street Journal, volunteers who contribute and edit entries in Wikipedia are leaving faster than new contributors are joining the site. Angwin and Fowler present several possible explanations for the net loss in editors.

One is that the site’s rules have become more strict over time. In the early days of Wikipedia, it was relatively easy to create an entry. But as Wikipedia’s library of content grew, it became obvious that the site would need to establish firm policies to remain credible. Entries on controversial topics can lead to bickering among contributors. It was important for Wikipedia to create ground rules to reign in the chaos. But those same policies can discourage people from contributing to the site.

The Journal also points out that it’s getting more difficult to find a topic that doesn’t already have its own Wikipedia page. Some volunteers may feel that they can no longer contribute to the site — others have already covered their area of expertise.

Whatever the reason, you can’t jump to the conclusion that this means Wikipedia is in trouble. It may be a natural part of Wikipedia’s cycle to slim down. There will always be a need for volunteers to update the site and resolve any conflicts. But there may no longer be a need for an army of volunteers.

The Journal says the main goal of Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales is to improve the accuracy of Wikipedia articles. If anyone can alter a page, even just for a day, it’s difficult to count on that information. It’s possible that an article is fine 99 percent of the time. But what if you log in during that one time of turbulence when someone with a grudge has altered the article?

Crowdsourcing can be a useful tool. I often turn to Twitter followers or Facebook friends for recommendations on where to eat or what book I should read next. But when it comes to researching topics like the risk of vaccines versus their benefits, it’s best to use objective, unbiased sources. It’s too easy for an evangelist — on either side of the issue — to log in to Wikipedia and skew the article so that it matches his or her world view.

Oh, and another reason crowdsourcing everything isn’t a great idea: Imagine you’re an alien visiting Earth for the first time and you log in to Wikipedia to learn what’s important to the human race. Surely the most important subjects would have longer entries than trivial matters, right? So that must mean that Optimus Prime (with an entry of more than 13,000 words) must be a much more important historical figure than, say, Julius Caesar (at just more than 8,200 words). I guess there really was more than met the eye.

Learn more at HowStuffWorks.com:

How Wikis Work
How Trolls Work
How the Wikipedia Scanner Works