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-Limits?from=rss > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
