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?
=What you need to know about... ...editing Wikipedia=
==Many consult this site, but few encourage to introduce new contents== [[Image:Wikipedia logo]]
The best reference work online, made in a disinterested way by the internet users was born in its current identity 15 January 2001. Since then, more than 2 million articles were crated in its English version, and more than 300.000 in the Spanish one. Currentl, it is available at 253 languages. Anyone can modify the articles or create new ones, but according to aninvetigation by the Minnesota University, it's only a few percentage of those who visit it, 'work' at it. Another peculiar data is that a minimun percentage of hte users (the 1%) are responsible of half the contents.
The fact that they're few people whoe really feed the contensts don't detract its quality. Teh same study points out that the probability that a user arrives at a few precise article or a vandalised one is very small. of only about 0.0037%. Moreover, 40% of the malicious changes are solved before the article is read by two different users.
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?
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/
wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org