Interesting read. I'd be interested to know what they considered vandalism. Certainly the kind of stuff my bot reverts is pretty obvious, I don't know if it counted subtle vandalism or a good page getting edited in good faith, but into a crappy state. Also, were the articles selected at random or high profile/biographies?
I would say that from my experience and random page clicking, .47-.5 % sounds about right for random articles being blatantly vandalized.
-Aaron Schulz
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:04:19 +0100 From: achim_raschka@gmx.de To: wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Only 0.0037% internet users arrive to a vandalised article
Hello,
Seems that http://www1.umn.edu/umnnews/news_details.php?release=071105_3621&page=NS is meant. The full pdf-paper is linked there.
Greetings from Berlin, Achim
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:13:35 +0100 Von: Platonides platonides@gmail.com An: Wikimedia Quality Discussions wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org Betreff: [Wikiquality-l] Only 0.0037% internet users arrive to a vandalised article
The following brief was published yesterday on 20minutes (www.20minutos.es) free newspaper at Spain in Spanish. I can send you the original if you want. The numbers are quite interesting. Does anyone know more about that study?
-- Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! Ideal für Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer
Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
_________________________________________________________________ The best games are on Xbox 360. Click here for a special offer on an Xbox 360 Console. http://www.xbox.com/en-US/hardware/wheretobuy/