Home

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Who writes wikipedia?

  • Sep. 29th, 2006 at 3:50 PM
2009, googles, burning man, need-a-shave
Fascinating piece via [info]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.

Comments

( 6 comments — Leave a comment )
[info]kirinn wrote:
Oct. 1st, 2006 04:48 pm (UTC)
Yeah, this doesn't really surprise me at all. People who contribute the bulk of actual information to a topic (at least the bulk of what sticks) are probably going to be specialists in that field (or sub-field, or sub-sub-sub-field). They're not going to have time to spend broadly editing wikipedia all year; they'll make their niche contribution and maybe check in on it later.

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.
[info]patrissimo wrote:
Oct. 1st, 2006 05:29 pm (UTC)
It makes total sense. Just funny that Jimmy Wales thought it was otherwise.
[info]pokarpokarpokar wrote:
Oct. 2nd, 2006 01:59 pm (UTC)
jeah!
(citation needed)
[info]wnissen wrote:
Oct. 2nd, 2006 04:19 pm (UTC)
Unfortunately, the outsiders are not always welcome
I've seen this scenario more than once: Person spends a lot of time writing a new article or a significant expansion of an existing one. It's not "wikified" with links and formatting but it is well-researched and informative.

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
(Anonymous) wrote:
Apr. 5th, 2008 09:09 pm (UTC)
What i can find on this forum ? I new here
HELLO ALL. LOOK FREE SEX VIDEOS:
http://sexvideos.createblog.com/blog/entry.php?id=9173
(Anonymous) wrote:
Sep. 21st, 2008 08:45 am (UTC)
zxcx
segdgdfhdfhdfhbb x
hkh
( 6 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

December 2009
S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow