Hello,
As far as it is about me, I can say that I left wikimedia-l twice or
three times. I left mainly because of the high amount of mails, also
often not very useful mails, witty remarks in 1-2 lines for example.
But I think that this is a good example for a quantitative research
that should
Hello Ziko,
Am 05.06.2015 um 09:33 schrieb Ziko van Dijk zvand...@gmail.com:
But I think that this is a good example for a quantitative research
that should later lead you to a qualitative look. And maybe it is
indeed an indicator for something. In systems theory, one might think
that the
Yes, but may I also point out that one of our biggest problems on EN wiki is
that even good faith newbies will often have their edits reverted. If you add
uncited facts to a page you are now much more likely to have your edit reverted
than to have someone add citation needed so I would suggest
HI Ziko,
I agree. That sounds like a TL;DR of my research agenda. :D
- It started with
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/
- So I tied to make assessing newcomers easier
The number one problem with Wikipedia seems to be the assessment of
newbies and the communication with them. We often don't have enough
information in order to see whether a contribution was made in good or
bad faith. We usually simply revert.
If the contribution was made in bad faith, that
