--- El vie, 14/11/08, Desilets, Alain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > De: Desilets, Alain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Asunto: RE: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor" > Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Research into Wikimedia content and communities" > <[email protected]> > Fecha: viernes, 14 noviembre, 2008 2:32 > Regarding this, I have had heard different stories about > contributors. > > I seem to recall one study that concluded that, while 85% > of the **edits** are done by a small core of contributors, > if you take a random page and select a sentence from it, > this sentence is more likely to be the result of edits by > contributors from the "long tail" than core > contributors. I forget the reference for that study though. > > Does someone on this list have solid information about > this? I think it's a fairly crucial piece of information > that we should have a clear handle on as a research > community. >
Hi, Alain. Yes, the study is by Aaron Schwartz. It was a base premise in our last paper at HICSS 08, comparing his statement to the theory of Jimmy Wales about the core of very active users. Actually, both are right (more or less :) ). If you look at it from the "per_user" perspective, the core can be identified very precisely. But your question is focused on "per_article" statistics. It's logical to expect so, since the distribution of distinct authors per article follows a stepped power-law, and you have a lot of articles in the larger editions. If you pick an article at random, chances are that you will, most probably, pick one with few editors. Best, Felipe. > Alain > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:wiki- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Felipe Ortega > > Sent: November 13, 2008 5:33 PM > > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities > > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular > contributor" > > > > You have a very similar effect in larger Wikipedias. > In those ones, > > there is no very active, "single bus"-like > contributor, but a core of > > very active users concentrating about 85% of the total > number of edits > > per month. > > > > It seems that in these languages, though, there is a > generational relay > > in which new active users jump into the core to > substitute those who > > eventually give up, for any reason. So, the > concentration becomes > > stable after a couple of years (aprox.) and the > encyclopedia is able to > > continue growing. > > > > Best. > > > > F. > > > > > > --- El jue, 23/10/08, Gerard Meijssen > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > escribió: > > > > > De: Gerard Meijssen > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Asunto: Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular > contributor" > > > Para: "Research into Wikimedia content and > communities" > > > <[email protected]> > > > Fecha: jueves, 23 octubre, 2008 10:27 > > > Hoi, > > > I missed that this was the research mailing > list.. my fault. > > > Consequently my answer was not appropriate. With > this in mind, it is > > > interesting to learn how the spread is in > particularly the smaller > > > projects. In my opinion there must be a certain > amount of productive > > > people in order to get to a community that does > not have one person > > > who is the "bus factor". > > > > > > Having someone who drives the bus is really > important. I wonder how > > > you can point this person out. I think that > someone who is just > > > editing is important but it is not all that > builds a community. > > > Thanks, > > > GerardM > > > > > > On the Volapuk wikipedia Smeira was really > important. When he left, I > > > understand that activity collapsed. > > > > > > 2008/10/22 phoebe ayers > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > 2008/10/21 Gerard Meijssen > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > >> Hoi, > > > >> When you divide people up in groups, > when you > > > single out the ones "most > > > >> valuable", you in effect divide the > > > community. Whatever you base your > > > >> metrics on, there will be sound > arguments to deny > > > the point of view. When it > > > >> is about the number of edits, it is > clear to the > > > pure encyclopedistas that > > > >> most of the policy wonks have not > supported what > > > is the "real" aim of the > > > >> project. > > > >> > > > >> When you label groups of people, you > divide them > > > and it is exactly the > > > >> egalitarian aspect that makes the > community > > > thrive. > > > > > > > > > > > > But this isn't about labeling people for > the rest > > > of time and saying that > > > > this is how they are defined *on Wikipedia* > -- > > > it's about saying how do you > > > > study people who regularly contribute to > Wikipedia, > > > and as a part of that > > > > how do you define the group that you are > studying, > > > which is an important > > > > question for any research study. > > > > > > > > Given that it's impossible to study > every > > > contributor to the project in > > > > every study, and since many researchers are > interested > > > in why people who > > > > spend a lot of time or effort working on > Wikipedia do > > > so (and what exactly > > > > it is they do), this is a very relevant > question for > > > this list. > > > > > > > > --phoebe > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wiki-research-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
