Sure, we have started a great migration of our website, so the old links does not work, yet.
You can grab it from here:
http://gsyc.es/~jfelipe/tmp/Ineq_Wikipedia.pdf
Best.
F.
--- El lun, 17/11/08, Desilets, Alain Alain.Desilets@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca escribió:
De: Desilets, Alain Alain.Desilets@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca Asunto: RE: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor" Para: glimmer_phoenix@yahoo.es, "Research into Wikimedia content and communities" wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org Fecha: lunes, 17 noviembre, 2008 2:36 Thx. Do you have the URL, or title? I can't find it on the web.
-----Original Message----- From: Felipe Ortega [mailto:glimmer_phoenix@yahoo.es] Sent: November 15, 2008 12:43 PM To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities;
Desilets, Alain
Subject: RE: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular
contributor"
--- El vie, 14/11/08, Desilets, Alain
escribió:
De: Desilets, Alain
Asunto: RE: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular
contributor"
Para: glimmer_phoenix@yahoo.es, "Research
into Wikimedia content and
communities"
wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Fecha: viernes, 14 noviembre, 2008 2:32 Regarding
this, I have had
heard different stories about contributors.
I seem to recall one study that concluded that,
while 85% of the
**edits** are done by a small core of
contributors, if you take a
random page and select a sentence from it, this
sentence is more
likely to be the result of edits by contributors
from the "long tail"
than core contributors. I forget the reference
for that study though.
Does someone on this list have solid information
about this? I think
it's a fairly crucial piece of information
that we should have a
clear
handle on as a research community.
Hi, Alain. Yes, the study is by Aaron Schwartz. It was
a base premise
in our last paper at HICSS 08, comparing his statement
to the theory of
Jimmy Wales about the core of very active users.
Actually, both are right (more or less :) ). If you
look at it from the
"per_user" perspective, the core can be
identified very precisely.
But your question is focused on
"per_article" statistics. It's logical
to expect so, since the distribution of distinct
authors per article
follows a stepped power-law, and you have a lot of
articles in the
larger editions. If you pick an article at random,
chances are that you
will, most probably, pick one with few editors.
Best,
Felipe.
Alain
-----Original Message----- From:
wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wiki-
research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On
Behalf Of
Felipe Ortega
Sent: November 13, 2008 5:33 PM To: Research into Wikimedia content and
communities
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular
contributor"
You have a very similar effect in larger
Wikipedias.
In those ones,
there is no very active, "single
bus"-like
contributor, but a core of
very active users concentrating about 85% of
the total
number of edits
per month.
It seems that in these languages, though,
there is a
generational relay
in which new active users jump into the core
to
substitute those who
eventually give up, for any reason. So, the
concentration becomes
stable after a couple of years (aprox.) and
the
encyclopedia is able to
continue growing.
Best.
F.
--- El jue, 23/10/08, Gerard Meijssen
escribió:
De: Gerard Meijssen
Asunto: Re: [Wiki-research-l]
"Regular
contributor"
Para: "Research into Wikimedia
content and
communities"
wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Fecha: jueves, 23 octubre, 2008 10:27
Hoi, I missed that this was
the research mailing
list.. my fault.
Consequently my answer was not
appropriate. With
this in mind, it is
interesting to learn how the spread is
in
particularly the smaller
projects. In my opinion there must be a
certain
amount of productive
people in order to get to a community
that does
not have one person
who is the "bus factor".
Having someone who drives the bus is
really
important. I wonder how
you can point this person out. I think
that
someone who is just
editing is important but it is not all
that
builds a community.
Thanks, GerardM
On the Volapuk wikipedia Smeira was
really
important. When he left, I
understand that activity collapsed.
2008/10/22 phoebe ayers
2008/10/21 Gerard Meijssen
> Hoi, > When you divide people up in
groups,
when you
single out the ones "most
> valuable", you in effect
divide the
community. Whatever you base your
> metrics on, there will be
sound
arguments to deny
the point of view. When it
> is about the number of edits,
it is
clear to the
pure encyclopedistas that
> most of the policy wonks have
not
supported what
is the "real" aim of the
> project. > > When you label groups of
people, you
divide them
and it is exactly the
> egalitarian aspect that makes
the
community
thrive.
But this isn't about labeling
people for
the rest
of time and saying that
this is how they are defined *on
Wikipedia*
--
it's about saying how do you
study people who regularly
contribute to
Wikipedia,
and as a part of that
how do you define the group that
you are
studying,
which is an important
question for any research study.
Given that it's impossible to
study
every
contributor to the project in
every study, and since many
researchers are
interested
in why people who
spend a lot of time or effort
working on
Wikipedia do
so (and what exactly
it is they do), this is a very
relevant
question for
this list.
--phoebe
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l