Fascinating piece via
andrewpundit:
If you just count edits, it appears the biggest contributors to the Alan Alda article (7 of the top 10) are registered users who (all but 2) have made thousands of edits to the site. Indeed, #4 has made over 7,000 edits while #7 has over 25,000. In other words, if you use Wales's methods, you get Wales's results: most of the content seems to be written by heavy editors.
But when you count letters, the picture dramatically changes: few of the contributors (2 out of the top 10) are even registered and most (6 out of the top 10) have made less than 25 edits to the entire site. In fact, #9 has made exactly one edit -- this one! With the more reasonable metric -- indeed, the one Wales himself said he planned to use in the next revision of his study -- the result completely reverses.
I don't have the resources to run this calculation across all of Wikipedia (there are over 60 million edits!), but I ran it on several more randomly-selected articles and the results were much the same. For example, the largest portion of the Anaconda article was written by a user who only made 2 edits to it (and only 100 on the entire site). By contrast, the largest number of edits were made by a user who appears to have contributed no text to the final article (the edits were all deleting things and moving things around).
When you put it all together, the story become clear: an outsider makes one edit to add a chunk of information, then insiders make several edits tweaking and reformatting it. In addition, insiders rack up thousands of edits doing things like changing the name of a category across the entire site -- the kind of thing only insiders deeply care about. As a result, insiders account for the vast majority of the edits. But it's the outsiders who provide nearly all of the content.
And when you think about it, this makes perfect sense. Writing an encyclopedia is hard. To do anywhere near a decent job, you have to know a great deal of information about an incredibly wide variety of subjects. Writing so much text is difficult, but doing all the background research seems impossible.
- Music:Barenaked Ladies _ Alcohol


Comments
The people with a jillion edits, by contrast, are, well, editors. They'll be all over the place (hopegfully) improving form and readability, but they're not going to be the in-depth experts.
Instantly, it's either marked as a suspected copyright violation, or worse, submitted as an article for deletion and shitcanned because Wikipedians confusing "original research" (doing experiments in a lab) with well-researched original writing. The outsider doesn't even see the results of the Wikipedia process (because it's almost impossible to get notified about these things unless you check the site every three days). They (reasonably) can't understand why their valuable piece of writing is gone, so they repost it one or more and get banned as a vandal.
The miracle of Wikipedia is not how it works, but that it works at all.
Walt
http://sexvideos.createblog.com/blog/ent
hkh