Editors who use automated tools to do various little fixes can generate large edit counts.
Of course it does not follow that all large-edit-count editors are doing this.
Sent from my iPad
On 29/10/2012, at 8:47 AM, "Yaroslav M. Blanter" <putevod(a)mccme.ru>
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:13:48 +1100, Kerry Raymond
As far as I can see most of the top 10000 editors appear to be making
a lot of of their contributions in terms of administration and
control (eg fighting vandalism) rather than in content. I think the
"long tail" of (good faith) editors are mostly contributing content
a range of topics that I believe will continue to grow. I believe
once a WYSIWYG editor for WP becomes available we will see a growth
the long tail of editors and the topics they write on because I think
wiki markup is a barrier for many people currently under-represented
in the demographics of WP editors.
I actually have quite the opposite impression. I think most of the top
contributors are actually creating content. I myself am somewhere in the
top 3000, and 90% of my edits are in the article space. I would be
interested to see a study on this if it exists.
I agree WP has moved into a new phase different from its earliest
years and probably its policies and processes might need to change to
reflect that. For example, it's fine to "be bold" with a stub, but
betide the newbie editor that decides to be bold with a
article whose current words may have been carefully crafted to
the right nuances to keep all the warring factions happy. Personally
believe mature articles need more of a curated approach to
new material contributed by anyone but where the edits are done by
more experienced editors of that topic. Not that they should be
"gatekeepers" but that the material be added in the right place and
a way that reflects prior agreements in relation to reflecting
differing viewpoints. I think the WP policy on mature articles should
be "be careful not to break what's already there".
With this I agree.
Wiki-research-l mailing list