Thx. That's not the study I had seen (it was a more formal scientific paper), but it has similar conclusions.
Does anyone know of a more formal scientific paper (not that it matters to me, but some of my colleagues put more trust in that sort of publications than in blog posts).
-----Original Message----- From: wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wiki- research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Platonides Sent: November 15, 2008 10:36 AM To: wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"
Desilets, Alain wrote:
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 clear handle on as a research community.
Alain
It was a research by Aaron Swartz http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l