Hi all,
I want to share some new research in to Wikipedia article creation trends on the 10 largest Wikipedias: English, German, French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, Polish, Chinese, Japanese and Russian.
This work was led by Aaron Halfaker and done in part as background work in to potential future design work by the Growth team, aimed at helping newcomers be more successful at creating their first articles.
- Slides are at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_article_creation_(Nov,_201...
- and Aaron's talk was recorded as part of our first public research showcase at the Wikimedia Foundation: http://youtu.be/arO9YzcTWGE
This is really important insight in to the nature of who creates articles and how on large Wikipedias. Aaron compares the overall success rates of editors based on their experience level, as well as the workflow used to create a page (direct creation, userspace draft, or a more elaborate review process like English Wikipedia's Articles for Creation system).
In particular, some important or unusual conclusions/questions we have are...
1. Retention of articles by newly-registered users is actually getting worse over time. How can we use new software and better social policies to turn this around? In addition to Aaron's thoughts in the presentation, we have notes on mediawiki.org.[1][2] 2. Except in Polish and English (where anonymous article creation is turned off) anonymous editors are actually much more prolific and successful article creators than users who create a page in their first 24 hours after registering an account. How can we support these anonymous editors more? Our hypothesis about why they are more successful is currently that they include some experienced editors, including some small number of logged-out Wikipedians. 3. Why is survival of new articles so high on Japanese Wikipedia? 4. How can we seriously reform review processes like "Articles for Creation", Flagged Revisions, and so on? These backlogs of review hamper throughput of new articles created by newbies. In English Wikipedia's case, it is seriously choking off new article creation. The quality of articles that make it past is high, but is not enough to make up for the 50% (!) drop in volume of new articles in my view.
More thoughts are welcome,
1. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_article_creation 2. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Draft_namespace and its /Usability testing subpages
2014-03-04 0:16 GMT+01:00 Steven Walling swalling@wikimedia.org:
Hi all,
I want to share some new research in to Wikipedia article creation trends on the 10 largest Wikipedias: English, German, French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, Polish, Chinese, Japanese and Russian.
By largest, you mean most visited? Or am I missing something here?
/Jan
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Jan Ainali jan.ainali@wikimedia.se wrote:
2014-03-04 0:16 GMT+01:00 Steven Walling swalling@wikimedia.org:
Hi all,
I want to share some new research in to Wikipedia article creation trends on the 10 largest Wikipedias: English, German, French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, Polish, Chinese, Japanese and Russian.
By largest, you mean most visited? Or am I missing something here?
Sorry to be vague. I mean the top 10 listed by the order at wikipedia.org. This is my lazy way of quantifying largest, but I like it because the community largely determines that order. I believe it is by number of articles?
On 03/03/2014 06:39 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
Sorry to be vague. I mean the top 10 listed by the order at wikipedia.org http://wikipedia.org. This is my lazy way of quantifying largest, but I like it because the community largely determines that order. I believe it is by number of articles?
I was also thinking you meant top 10 by number of articles. However, it turns out that's not the case. E.g. Swedish Wikipedia has 1,612,674 (https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistik), far more than Chinese (https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:%E7%BB%9F%E8%AE%A1%E4%BF%...) at 754,563. However, Chinese is at the top, whereas Swedish isn't.
I was curious, so I asked what the current criteria is at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Www.wikipedia.org_template#Top_10_Crite... .
At any rate, we shouldn't refer to this group as the 10 largest Wikipedias, since that's not the case.
Matt Flaschen
On 03/04/2014 06:03 PM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
I was curious, so I asked what the current criteria is at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Www.wikipedia.org_template#Top_10_Crite...
PiRSquared17 pointed me to the docs (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Www.wikipedia.org_template/Documentatio...), which note that the top ten are sorted by page views, while the remaining are grouped into sections by number of articles/content pages.
Matt Flaschen
On 4 March 2014 23:29, Matthew Flaschen mflaschen@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 03/04/2014 06:03 PM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
I was curious, so I asked what the current criteria is at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Www.wikipedia.org_template#Top_10_Crite...
PiRSquared17 pointed me to the docs (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Www.wikipedia.org_template/Documentatio...), which note that the top ten are sorted by page views, while the remaining are grouped into sections by number of articles/content pages.
Yes, this was after Volapuk Wikipedia's single editor tried gaming the numbers with hundreds of thousands of bot-generated articles.
- d.