Sure, we have started a great migration of our website, so the old links does not work, yet.
You can grab it from here: http://gsyc.es/~jfelipe/tmp/Ineq_Wikipedia.pdf Best. F. --- El lun, 17/11/08, 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: lunes, 17 noviembre, 2008 2:36 > Thx. Do you have the URL, or title? I can't find it on > the web. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Felipe Ortega [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: November 15, 2008 12:43 PM > > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities; > Desilets, Alain > > Subject: RE: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular > contributor" > > > > --- 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
