These same patterns have been noted for decades in studies of volunteerism, charitable
giving, community association, face-to-face support groups, and voluntary religious
organizations. They are a consequences of the interaction of human interests/motivations
and competition for limited attention/effort playing out at a population level.
Is there really any reason to expect that they wouldn't still work that way?
(or actually be made "worse" -- because online environments make the costs of
exploration lower, switching from one activity/group to another lower, and the number of
alternatives higher).
Brian Butler
UMD, iSchool
On Jan 6, 2015, at 4:20 PM, Jonathan Morgan wrote:
This from Ars[1]. Sound familiar?
* "The top 10 percent of contributors end up supplying an average of about 80
percent of the total effort put into these projects."
* "Most people who show up to check out a project never return. The most
compelling projects still saw 60 percent of their users stop by for a single visit and
never come back; the worst case was an 83-percent rate."
* "The topic of the project also seemed to have some effect [on participation
rates]. The biggest project... lets users sift through Kepler telescope data to search for
exoplanets; that attracted almost 30,000 users in its first 180 days. The smallest, Galaxy
Zoo Supernova (which is no longer active) only drew a bit over 3,000."
Original manuscript [2] (paywalled). Anyone have subscription access?
1.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/01/most-participants-in-citizen-science…
2.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/01/02/1408907112
--
Jonathan T. Morgan
Community Research Lead
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (
WMF)<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)>
jmorgan@wikimedia.org<mailto:jmorgan@wikimedia.org>
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l