Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia will exist in the far future

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconEssays Low‑impact
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.
LowThis page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
Note icon
The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

But do we really care?[edit]

I think that very few people really care about what happens in the far future. If we go far enough ahead then, according to most physicists, our descendants (and anything else) will not be able to live anyway. I care about what happens in my grandchildren's lifetimes, but find it difficult to have more than an academic interest in their grandchildren, who I will probably never meet. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Long Now Foundation and What We Owe the Future are two examples of an intellectual move towards placing higher value on long-term thinking and action. -- GreenC 15:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

note re this essay[edit]

thanks for this great essay, and for these valuable insights. I added a few points to this essay, just now. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Benefit to the far future[edit]

Etymologiae (560-636 AD) . "Etymologiae is less well known in modern times though modern scholars recognize Etymologiae for its importance both in the preservation of classical texts and for the insight it offers into the medieval mindset." I think that's the future of Wikipedia, mindset. -- GreenC 17:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the "edit" feature ceases to exist. 0xDeadbeef 17:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the technology and platform will have long be gone replaced with something different (better?), new generations will put their energies into the next great thing. In fact Wikipedia's life-term at this point is tenuous. Books as a media type lasted thousands of years so we can assume they will probably continue to exist for a long time. Wikis are only 25 years or so which is not much assurance this media form will last more than another 25 years, because statistically speaking odds are we are in the middle years of the lifespan of Wikipedia. The older something gets, the longer its future life probably will be -- GreenC 17:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that (your last sentence) applies to me. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it only applies if there is no other better information. Since we know humans have limited lifespan that information trumps. Sorry hah. -- GreenC 17:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Writing is on the way out[edit]

An extensive corpus of current human writing is likely to be available to analysts in the far future
As the use of personal electronic devices, e-mail and SMS texts increases, people are committing less of their personal life to paper.
Few people now keep many of their e-mails during their own lifetime and ISPs will have no motivation to archive the photos, notes and e-mails of accounts that fall silent.
As this trend continues, there will be progressively less personal material available for future archives — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 09:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

note re removal[edit]

someone just reverted and removed my text stating that "Wikipedia is a highly useful resource." they said that "a citation would be helpful." sorry.... but since when do essays need to have citations? in any way? Sm8900 (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I see that the person who did so is actually the person who originated this essay. ok, fair enough. but please take my question above as a genuine question, not as an effort to be contentious or to argue in any way. so on that basis, could you please clarify, @Barnards.tar.gz? I'm open to any answer you may wish to express. thanks for this great essay, by the way. Sm8900 (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sm8900, thank you for your kind words. The revert was certainly not intended to be personal. I started the essay as somewhat tongue-in-cheek but ended up with it at least superficially serious. I do think Wikipedia is a great achievement, but I don’t think this is the place to justify that. There are plenty of supporters who have made that case elsewhere. I actually like the “citation needed” and would prefer it to stand unaddressed (I find it hilariously Wikipedian to request a citation for the claim that Wikipedia is good), even though I agree that citations aren’t a requirement for essays. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can confirm, it's pretty funny. 😉 Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 06:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exist or still dominate?[edit]

I don't doubt that Wikipedia will exist for as long as we remain a tech civilisation. But continue to be the main reference work? Continue to be edited? I doubt that. Within a few centuries, maybe just decades it will be as much a historical relic as the domesday book today. The next big revolution is likely to be when auto translation gets to the point where we have to decide whether to integrate one Wikipedias or have multiple language versions compete. ϢereSpielChequers 18:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]