The issue was discussed a bit in 2008 under the title "Regular contributor", see the thread here:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2008-November/000672.h...
I have attempted to summarize the issue in the section "User contribution" here: "Wikipedia research and tools: Review and comments." http://www2.compute.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/edoc_download.php/6012/pdf/imm6012.pd...
There is also a few pointers in the "Participation Trends" section in our "The people's encyclopedia under the gaze of the sages: A systematic review of scholarly research on Wikipedia" http://orbit.dtu.dk/fedora/objects/orbit:119482/datastreams/file_73b48cd3-a7...
One interesting original study is this one: "Creating, Destroying, and Restoring Value in Wikipedia" from 2007 by Reid Priedhorsky and others. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1316624.1316663
They conclude:
"We show that 1/10th of 1% of editors contributed nearly half of the value, measured by words read."
best regards Finn Årup Nielsen
On 06/23/2015 04:46 PM, Krzysztof Gajewski wrote:
Hi all,
I wonder if you know if somebody verified and / or further researched Aaron Swartz's thesis on structure of Wikipedia participation. You can find it here: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia
Best, Krzysztof Gajewski
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l