Hmm...the interesting depiction of Jimbo was what caught me. At least it's not all bad about Wikipedia, like most news articles are.
-Soxred93
On 23/02/2008, Soxred93@gmail.com soxred93@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm...the interesting depiction of Jimbo was what caught me. At least it's not all bad about Wikipedia, like most news articles are.
There's quite an interesting statistic buried in there:
"People who've made more than 10,000 edits add nearly twice as many words to Wikipedia as they delete. By contrast, those who've made fewer than 100 edits are the only group that deletes more words than it adds."
This seems entirely plausible to me, but what struck me is that it doesn't quite seem to gel with the study last year which claimed that most contributions were from incidental users...
There's quite an interesting statistic buried in there:
"People who've made more than 10,000 edits add nearly twice as many words to Wikipedia as they delete. By contrast, those who've made fewer than 100 edits are the only group that deletes more words than it adds."
This seems entirely plausible to me, but what struck me is that it doesn't quite seem to gel with the study last year which claimed that most contributions were from incidental users...
It's difficult to judge that statistic without knowing whether they're referring to the main namespace, or the whole project. The "chaperones", as the author calls them, may simply be deleting lots from the mainspace and adding lots to talk pages and the project space. The "people with <100 edits delete more than they add" is, of course, heavily skewed by people blanking entire pages.
On 23/02/2008, Soxred93@gmail.com soxred93@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm...the interesting depiction of Jimbo was what caught me. At least it's not all bad about Wikipedia, like most news articles are.
It all seems pretty accurate. Doesn't tell me anything I didn't already know, and someone should probably point the author to WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, but otherwise a half decent piece.
On 24/02/2008, Soxred93@gmail.com soxred93@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm...the interesting depiction of Jimbo was what caught me. At least it's not all bad about Wikipedia, like most news articles are.
"Digg and Wikipedia would do well to stop pretending they're operated by the many and start thinking of ways to rein in the power of the few."
Both sites are geared towards people who have the time and resources to spend huge amounts of time debating endlessly while those who are lesser species die out from exhaustion and the need to do meaningful real life activities. Any guesses where that is going to take something? :) It just manages to get wikipedia to stability most of the time I guess. It has a direct tendency to hinder NPOV though.
Peter