The article cited is a tertiary source (like Wikipedia), and so is "as
astonishingly bad"
The underlying research studies [ref#1], [ref#2] claim
"Researchers found that a relatively small number of editors have a
major influence on the site."
"As editors interact with one another and their opinions shift, higher
'p' makes opinions move more quickly toward those expressed by
Wikipedia."
"a persisting inequality of influence—with a small number of
super-editors controlling the form of many articles. The model results
imply that editing inequality is increasing with time, with fewer
editors gaining an ever more dominant role."
So surely these claims are worthy of discussion on this list ? if anybody cares
Toby
[ref#1]
I'm honestly not sure what this thread is meant to
achieve.
Might I suggest that if you object to the reporting you contact the author,
rather than drag their work in a largely-unknown internal mailing list?
It's likely to be more productive.
On Friday, 29 April 2016, Benjamin Lees <emufarmers(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Stephen
Philbrick
<stephen.w.philbrick(a)gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
and it is astonishing how bad it is.
If you're astonished, then I'm afraid you haven't read enough news
articles about Wikipedia yet. :-(
P.S. MAYBE IT'S TIME WE REEVALUATED OUR STANCE ON ALLCAPS.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>