Thx. That's not the study I had seen (it was a more formal scientific paper), but it has similar conclusions.
Does anyone know of a more formal scientific paper (not that it matters to me, but some of my colleagues put more trust in that sort of publications than in blog posts). > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:wiki- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Platonides > Sent: November 15, 2008 10:36 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor" > > Desilets, Alain wrote: > > 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. > > > > Alain > > It was a research by Aaron Swartz > http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
