Sage Ross wrote:
On 9/4/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/09/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
"Who Writes Wikipedia?" ( http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia
)
"This fact does have enormous policy implications. If Wikipedia is written by occasional contributors, then growing it requires making it easier and more rewarding to contribute occasionally. Instead of trying to squeeze more work out of those who spend their life on Wikipedia, we need to broaden the base of those who contribute just a little bit. Unfortunately, precisely because such people are only occasional contributors, their opinions aren't heard by the current Wikipedia process. They don't get involved in policy debates, they don't go to meetups, and they don't hang out with Jimbo Wales. And so things that might help them get pushed on the backburner, assuming they're even proposed."
This means that if we want the content to grow and be *good*, we need to be more newbie-friendly.
This is also a BIG stick to use on Byzantine overengineered processes and policy. Excessive process is actively newbie-hostile.
Look at Debian, bogged down in process, to the point where Richard Stallman failed to make it in as a Debian maintainer for his own software because of excessive process. Look how it took Ubuntu to give it a much-needed rocket up the arse. Without Ubuntu, we'd still be waiting on Etch. Will it take someone doing a successful fork to decalcify Wikipedia policy?
Answering "Who Writes Wikipedia?" in terms of number of surviving words is, no doubt, better than using edit counts. But it is also may not be the best approach for the future, if we are really switching to a "quality over quantity" mentality. At the least, there should be careful choices about what kinds of articles to analyze, before we put too much weight on results like these. My intuition is that Featured Articles and Good Articles have a significantly larger portion of established editors as the main contributors, even by the word count metric.
-Ragesoss
FA's and to some extent Good Articles are not the reason that we are #17 on the most visited sites. If those were the only articles we had I doubt we would have 1% of the readership that we currently enjoy. I think articles past a specific size or maybe size and age woudl be a better metric, though a random sampling of 10k non-stub articles woudl probbly give us what we want.
SKL