Wikipedia is not a social networking site
True. Growth never lasts forever. But without innovation, growth levels out pretty quickly. Show me an organization that doesn't innovate and I'll show you one that plateaus very quickly. Wikipedia's interface hasn't really changed in 10 years.
In 2001, Wikipedia was still an innovative idea. In a world of static personal webpages and corporate directories, Wikipedia stood alone. Even with the rise of blogging in 2004, Wikipedia still experienced strong growth. Blogs were still just static webpages in search of readers. On the other hand, writing something on Wikipedia had a guaranteed audience, plus a dynamic built-in community where editors with common interests could quickly find each other.
It wasn't until 2007 that growth started to taper off. Some of that is definitely natural. But I don't think the year 2007 is a coincidence. Time Magazine pronounced "you" were the person of the year, citing MySpace, YouTube, and Facebook. This isn't to say that any one of those companies is individually a work of genius. It's just that Wikipedia no longer stood alone. If you wanted an audience to express yourself to, there were a whole host of other options that were better than static webpages and blog hosts.
Some of those have already come and gone. But the few that continue to grow are the ones that continue to innovate. Wikipedia has at least done a better job than some of those in keeping the garbage out. But it's just not a rewarding experience for non-technical but otherwise smart people. There are brilliant people who do amazing research for no other reason than their love of knowledge and their desire to teach it to their friends. Facebook makes that simple enough that a child can use it -- just that a PhD or master artist can use it for more educational purposes.
If it were as easy to add a referenced fact to Wikipedia as it is to share a link to a news article on Facebook, you would see a lot more people doing it.
It's possible that Wikipedia's plateau is mostly natural. But the whole reason for this strategy session is that we believe that it's not. If you sincerely believe that the plateau is inevitable, which is a reasonable position to take, then what are you even doing here?
Change anti-social groups to stop decline: The growth of active users has ended: the active-user counts are in decline, now, for numbers of active and highly active editors ("busy" > 100 edits per month). However, Wikimedia projects could be made more-friendly to help attract and retain editors, as explained in the related Talk:May_2011 topic:
The evidence tells me that the initial decline, in active editors, went into freefall when universities (and other schools) began to ban the use of Wikipedia (WP), by decree and by website-blocking within school computer networks. The "rise-of-Facebook-theory" fails to consider that MySpace (now "Myspace") and other large forums were no threat to WP, before Facebook, but the April-2007 drop occurred when major newsreports announced schools banning WP (and whole schoolboards banned Wikipedia use in hundreds of schools). Certainly, the novelty wore off, articles required more tedious sources, and users left to seek easier, new websites. However, the hostility within WP talk-pages is still a major factor, and hence, the reduction of "hostility" is noted as 1-of-5 issues for the May 2011 Strategy goals.
This is another pretty good theory I hadn't considered. If the problem is that Wikipedia went into decline due to restrictions at school, what's the strategy to fix it?
Focus on adult rules, while students banned: I think the school-based bans are fairly permanent, but there are some student-friendly plans for limited exposure to Wikipedia for young students. The focus now is to work with the adults as in: when life gives you lemons, make lemonade. WP needs to change into a non-juvenile environment, based on clear, fair rules, which adults would expect to find in a mature, professional system, where people can socialize within rules of order (overview: "#Stop Wikipedia as an Anti-social Network").
Adults expect to get w:parking tickets, or speeding fines, for small violations of the rules. However, English Wikipedia is twisted, now, to allow severe w:WP:ANI sanctions (1-month block for a veiled insult), rather than a system of "w:proportional punishment" (no article yet?) for policy violations. It is analogous to parking a car over the line, with the punishment as getting your legs broken, to protect the 'pedia. New social systems, for centuries, have had to deal with unfairness, and learn: let the punishment fit the crime (an "eye for an eye") and punishments for false accusations (the false accuser goes to jail, as in the w:Code of Hammurabi). Why? ...it is one of the Top Ten Evils: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor". So, it happens a lot. That is why I recommend to switch to the cadet system of demerits (offset by earned merits), where posting an insult incurs only 100 demerits, acting as a type of fee (or fine) from an account of merit points, rather than a monetary fine. When the punishments are smaller (and proportional to the offense), then there is no need for the witch-hunt, drama-shows at enwiki w:WP:ANI (where hysteria often rules the outcome). One of the social problems, which I had overlooked, is that several people who are casting judgments at WP:ANI are currently serving sentences: there is no clear line between who is a reputable judge and who is a "convict" perhaps casting votes as revenge for their current WP edit-restrictions. Reduce all the juvenile bickering, such as issuing simple demerits for offenses, and more adults will see a mature system of social interaction, rather than a childish w:WP:PLAYground where bored kids come to fight. Change to a system where adults want to stay and edit articles, and that will reverse the growth above the bottom-limit of 3,400 highly active editors, where the decline is headed this year.
- If you sincerely believe that the plateau is inevitable, which is a reasonable position to take, then what are you even doing here?
Your question shows that you, as many others are misled by the buzzword "plateau". In context of wikipedia, 'plateau' means (1) decline in the speed of growth of the content (ie. exponential growth no more, but it is still growing, and there is still plenty of space to grow) and (2) arrested growth of the number of editors. That said, I am baffled by the the meaninglessness of your question: there are plenty of things to do "there" even in these circumstances. Or, perhaps, I don't understand you question phrased in a way too general as to become meaningless for me. Care to clarify?
It's a pretty plain question. You agree we hit a plateau. We think it's due to some kind of failing or missed opportunity that requires strategic action. You think it's an inevitability. What are you doing here then? I'm naive enough to waste my time fighting the inevitable. What's your excuse?
OK, think I finally understood what you mean. My point is that a plateau is not always evil. (I will not go into theoretical discussions of why here). What I am doing here is not just idly socializing, but considering how to ensure for the plateau not to turn into a decline or slippery slope or something worse. And this also requires strategic action. Like, how to run fast enough for just to stay in place. :-) P.S. I don't know what you meant under the word "here" in your question, but in my reply it means "in this talk page".