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(a)gmx.de
To: wikiquality-l(a)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(a)gmail.com>
An: Wikimedia Quality Discussions <wikiquality-l(a)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(a)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/