Interesting. So, in summary:
- Most edits done by a small core
- But, most of the text created by the long tail
- However, most of the text that people actually read, was created by
the small core
Is that a good summary of what we know about this question?
From: wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wiki-
research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Reid Priedhorsky
Sent: November 16, 2008 9:50 PM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"
Desilets, Alain wrote:
> Regarding this, I have had heard different stories about
> 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
> than core contributors. I forget the
reference for that study
>> Does someone on this list have solid information about this? I
it's a fairly crucial piece of information that we
should have a
clear handle on as a research community.
It was a research by Aaron Swartz
I led a study last year that found that the long tail was even longer
than it usually is (i.e., the "elite" contributors contribute even
than they would be expected to).
Specifically, the 0.1% of editors who edited the most times
about half the "value" of Wikipedia, when
value is measured by words
End of shameless plug. ;)
Wiki-research-l mailing list