-----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 <Alain.Desilets(a)nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
escribió:
De: Desilets, Alain
<Alain.Desilets(a)nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
Asunto: RE: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"
Para: glimmer_phoenix(a)yahoo.es, "Research into Wikimedia content and
communities" <wiki-research-l(a)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
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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wiki-
research-l-bounces(a)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
<gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
escribió:
> De: Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
> Asunto: Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular
contributor"
> Para: "Research into Wikimedia content
and
communities"
> <wiki-research-l(a)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
<phoebe.ayers(a)gmail.com>
>
> > 2008/10/21 Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
> >
> >> 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l