So these particular changes are more about the UI for viewing/consuming content than editing/creating.
And I'm suspicious of the theory that a harder to use UI for editing results in higher quality content. I understand your theory that some people who would edit content maliciously or without proper care would be put off by a harder to use UI, but it's not obvious to me that it's true, or that it wouldn't be countered by putting off even more people who would have good intentions and take proper care, some of whom correct malicious content. When making decisions for a site that millions use, you probably don't want to make significant strategic decisions, like to intentionally not make the UI as easy to use as you can, based on hunches.
But anyway, wikipedians have actually had the opposite concern of yours for a while, rather than increasing to "too many" contributors, wikipedia seems to be losing contributors, and many see it as a problem. Both because you need enough contributors to maintain content, and because the self-image of wikipedia is that "anyone can edit", they actually want to make it accessible, not put barriers in the way.
More info about who contributes to wikipedia is on the following page, which suggests about 132K users in the last 30 days. I don't know what the number is for how many users viewed wikipedia in the last 30 days but I'd guess far under 1% of wikipedia users make edits.
Much of the discussion in your first link seems very old. There is a link buried in there to this discussion in 2015, when it was suggested that the trend may be reversing (based on the questionable decision to focus on “active” editors making more than 100 edits a month). It would be surprising if the growth in internet use over the past decade had not increased the number of Wikipedia editors at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...
I’m suspicious too, but I agree with the grandparent that we should tread very carefully. Wikipedia’s success probably has at least something to do with the fact that its development has been extremely slow and isolated from commercial web development trends.
i agree wth you. i was just providing a potential reason why making it easiercould be hazardous (just like makin it harder could be). Wikipedia is such a special thing and we don't totally understand why it has worked.
And I'm suspicious of the theory that a harder to use UI for editing results in higher quality content. I understand your theory that some people who would edit content maliciously or without proper care would be put off by a harder to use UI, but it's not obvious to me that it's true, or that it wouldn't be countered by putting off even more people who would have good intentions and take proper care, some of whom correct malicious content. When making decisions for a site that millions use, you probably don't want to make significant strategic decisions, like to intentionally not make the UI as easy to use as you can, based on hunches.
But anyway, wikipedians have actually had the opposite concern of yours for a while, rather than increasing to "too many" contributors, wikipedia seems to be losing contributors, and many see it as a problem. Both because you need enough contributors to maintain content, and because the self-image of wikipedia is that "anyone can edit", they actually want to make it accessible, not put barriers in the way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_is_Wikipedia_los...
More info about who contributes to wikipedia is on the following page, which suggests about 132K users in the last 30 days. I don't know what the number is for how many users viewed wikipedia in the last 30 days but I'd guess far under 1% of wikipedia users make edits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Who_writes_Wikipedia...