From Slashdot article [1]:
"The Guardian reports that a study by Ed H Chi demonstrates that the character of Wikipedia has changed significantly since Wikipedia's first burst of activity between 2004 and 2007. While the encyclopedia is still growing overall, the number of articles being added has reduced from an average of 2,200 a day in July 2007 to around 1,300 today while at the same time, the base of highly active editors has remained more or less static. Chi's team discovered that the way the site operates had changed significantly from the early days, when it ran an open-door policy that allowed in anyone with the time and energy to dedicate to the project. Today, they discovered, a stable group of high-level editors has become increasingly responsible for controlling the encyclopedia, while casual contributors and editors are falling away. 'We found that if you were an elite editor, the chance of your edit being reverted was something in the order of 1% — and that's been very consistent over time from around 2003 or 2004,' says Chi. 'For editors that make between two and nine edits a month, the percentage of their edits being reverted had gone from 5% in 2004 all the way up to about 15% by October 2008. And the 'onesies' — people who only make one edit a month — their edits are now being reverted at a 25% rate.' While Chi points out that this does not necessarily imply causation, he suggests it is concrete evidence to back up what many people have been saying: that it is increasingly difficult to enjoy contributing to Wikipedia unless you are part of the site's inner core of editors. Wikipedia's growth pattern suggests that it is becoming like a community where resources have started to run out. 'As you run out of food, people start competing for that food, and that results in a slowdown in population growth and means that the stronger, more well-adapted part of the population starts to have more power.'"
I think that this analysis has point and that we should think about consequences. Today WM RS had meeting in Novi Sad and we talked about this issue, too: How to attract new contributors to stay at Wikipedia.
[1] - http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/08/13/1310228/Wikipedia-Approaches-Its-Lim...
Not a new topic, but I find editing about the same. Still nitwits guarding pitiful amateur POV productions like dogs, and citing inapropos policy as though it were holy writ.
Fred
From Slashdot article [1]:
"The Guardian reports that a study by Ed H Chi demonstrates that the character of Wikipedia has changed significantly since Wikipedia's first burst of activity between 2004 and 2007. While the encyclopedia is still growing overall, the number of articles being added has reduced from an average of 2,200 a day in July 2007 to around 1,300 today while at the same time, the base of highly active editors has remained more or less static. Chi's team discovered that the way the site operates had changed significantly from the early days, when it ran an open-door policy that allowed in anyone with the time and energy to dedicate to the project. Today, they discovered, a stable group of high-level editors has become increasingly responsible for controlling the encyclopedia, while casual contributors and editors are falling away. 'We found that if you were an elite editor, the chance of your edit being reverted was something in the order of 1% and that's been very consistent over time from around 2003 or 2004,' says Chi. 'For editors that make between two and nine edits a month, the percentage of their edits being reverted had gone from 5% in 2004 all the way up to about 15% by October 2008. And the 'onesies' people who only make one edit a month their edits are now being reverted at a 25% rate.' While Chi points out that this does not necessarily imply causation, he suggests it is concrete evidence to back up what many people have been saying: that it is increasingly difficult to enjoy contributing to Wikipedia unless you are part of the site's inner core of editors. Wikipedia's growth pattern suggests that it is becoming like a community where resources have started to run out. 'As you run out of food, people start competing for that food, and that results in a slowdown in population growth and means that the stronger, more well-adapted part of the population starts to have more power.'"
I think that this analysis has point and that we should think about consequences. Today WM RS had meeting in Novi Sad and we talked about this issue, too: How to attract new contributors to stay at Wikipedia.
[1] - http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/08/13/1310228/Wikipedia-Approaches-Its-Lim...
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
OK,
There might be two (or more? :-) alternative models of that... usurpation (?is that the right word?):
1. conspiracy of nitwits, which got organised into flock/gang/horde and don't want anybody else to play with their beloved toy (even to cross the border of their virtual territory);
2. some people ('veterans') are clever enough to make a conclusion (on the base of community/tribe experience) that knowledge collection and spreading is a craft and not so simple craft, so they start to filter newbies... putting them into "either-or" situation: either you will became apprentice first or (if you're too... bold or snobbish for that) you should go somewhere else.
As to "guarding pitiful amateur POV productions like dogs" - well, I admit that sometimes I do that (being aware that I'm protecting POV if not worse) when some newcomer is too <s>snobbish</s> bold and start to sustitute it by another POV, explicitly (and in some cases not politely) refusing to supply sources, referring to his/her self-confidence (+PhDs titles etc.) instead. ...and yes, I do cite (I have to do that!) policies in this cases.
By the way - about policies: I have no doubts that if one will compare the reverts statistics (just numbers) before and after policies usage there might be same conclusions: policies are evil. I mean that no policy = no edit criteria so while each and every edit was good (at least acceptable) before, policies means edits filtering what means editor filtering if newbie is too ambitious or something...
Anyhow I'm sure that project evolves (grew up?) and there is no surprise that it became different in comparison to "those days" situation. So just the fact that some signs of evolution process are discovered doesn't mean that it's signs of something bad. Those signs are subject not to reflects (emotional ones) but to thorough thinking then discussion then thinking then discussion... :-P
Pavlo ____________ P.S. As I'm far not the native speaker in English so I needed Wikipedia/vocabularies help to comprehend word 'nitwit'. Now I understand the meaning but I have the question about roots of that word: Is name of those http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nitwits&redirect=no cheering people is the origin of this word http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nitwit http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=nitwit ? :-) ... yeah, I'm guilty - sorta original research (express one) :-P
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 3:11 AM, Fred Bauderfredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Not a new topic, but I find editing about the same. Still nitwits guarding pitiful amateur POV productions like dogs, and citing inapropos policy as though it were holy writ.
Fred
From Slashdot article [1]:
I think that this analysis has point and that we should think about consequences. Today WM RS had meeting in Novi Sad and we talked about this issue, too: How to attract new contributors to stay at Wikipedia.
[1] - http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/08/13/1310228/Wikipedia-Approaches-Its-Lim...
I prefer this essay:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Modelling_Wikipedia_extended_growth
I wonder about about this model in other wikis:
http://cloudy.martinkozak.net/wikisupport/statistics/?family=wikipedias&...
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesArticlesNewPerDay.htm
and global model for all wikipedias
But - I agree - we have problem with number of newbies.
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediansEditsGt5.htm
przykuta
Hoi, While I really like the http://cloudy.martinkozak.net/wikisupport/statistics/?family=wikipedias&...... they are sadly woefully incomplete. This may have to do with a lack of servers but for me the numbers that I am interested in are just not there. Numbers for language like lb bn os sw ... By concentrating on our biggest, more mature projects we do not see how the others are progressing. Thanks, Gerard
2009/8/16 Przykuta przykuta@o2.pl
I think that this analysis has point and that we should think about consequences. Today WM RS had meeting in Novi Sad and we talked about this issue, too: How to attract new contributors to stay at Wikipedia.
[1] -
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/08/13/1310228/Wikipedia-Approaches-Its-Lim...
I prefer this essay:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Modelling_Wikipedia_extended_growth
I wonder about about this model in other wikis:
http://cloudy.martinkozak.net/wikisupport/statistics/?family=wikipedias&...
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesArticlesNewPerDay.htm
and global model for all wikipedias
But - I agree - we have problem with number of newbies.
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediansEditsGt5.htm
przykuta
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
It ssems like the a mouth of vandalism has changed and that this could be the main reason why the a mouth of reverts has gone up. Previously there was also a larger a mouth of smaller articles and then any edit is a valid contribution. Now there is a larger number of bigger articles and not every edit fit in. In addition newer tools makes it easier to spot errors and this leads to a situation whereby a few script operators do a larger part of the reverts, while previously much more was done by random readers finding an error.
John
Milos Rancic wrote:
From Slashdot article [1]:
"The Guardian reports that a study by Ed H Chi demonstrates that the character of Wikipedia has changed significantly since Wikipedia's first burst of activity between 2004 and 2007. While the encyclopedia is still growing overall, the number of articles being added has reduced from an average of 2,200 a day in July 2007 to around 1,300 today while at the same time, the base of highly active editors has remained more or less static. Chi's team discovered that the way the site operates had changed significantly from the early days, when it ran an open-door policy that allowed in anyone with the time and energy to dedicate to the project. Today, they discovered, a stable group of high-level editors has become increasingly responsible for controlling the encyclopedia, while casual contributors and editors are falling away. 'We found that if you were an elite editor, the chance of your edit being reverted was something in the order of 1% — and that's been very consistent over time from around 2003 or 2004,' says Chi. 'For editors that make between two and nine edits a month, the percentage of their edits being reverted had gone from 5% in 2004 all the way up to about 15% by October 2008. And the 'onesies' — people who only make one edit a month — their edits are now being reverted at a 25% rate.' While Chi points out that this does not necessarily imply causation, he suggests it is concrete evidence to back up what many people have been saying: that it is increasingly difficult to enjoy contributing to Wikipedia unless you are part of the site's inner core of editors. Wikipedia's growth pattern suggests that it is becoming like a community where resources have started to run out. 'As you run out of food, people start competing for that food, and that results in a slowdown in population growth and means that the stronger, more well-adapted part of the population starts to have more power.'"
I think that this analysis has point and that we should think about consequences. Today WM RS had meeting in Novi Sad and we talked about this issue, too: How to attract new contributors to stay at Wikipedia.
[1] - http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/08/13/1310228/Wikipedia-Approaches-Its-Lim...
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org