Re: [Wiki-research-l] Regular contributor
Desilets, Alain wrote: I understand the difficulty of dealing with anonymous edits, because many of them might be edits from registered users who simply did not bother to log on for that one edit. However, I think it is worth looking at how the conclusions might be affected under different scenarios for labelling those anonymous users. For example, one might assume that the bulk of anonymous edits are made by infrequent contributors who are part of the long tail, as opposed to the members of the core. Does that change anything to the conclusion that most of the value is produced by a small core? If the answer is that even this does not change the conclusions, then case is closed. But if turns out that the conclusion is sensitive to how you label anonymous, then it seems to me that the next research that needs to be carried out, is to try and characterise the degree to which anons are, or are not registered users who are part of the core. Alain Anonymous are not part of the core. People in the small core do have accounts. They may have started as ips, but there're too many advantages on registering for regular users. Yes, it may be an edit by a long term user whose session timeouted, but he will log in for the next one. Also, he may be in the core on a different wiki (and editing anonymusly on a foreign one)*. Long-term wikipedians editing anonymously are long-term on another one or banned users coming with a different hat. Other reasons could be edits on insecure computers or people afraid of being recognised. *Addtion of SUL on wikimedia wikis will mitigate this. Disclaimer: These are my personal observations. So don't take it as a formal study. :) ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Regular contributor
Ziko van Dijk wrote: My own concern with my definition is that it I should raise the minimum number of edits of a regular contributor. Also the period of observation should be longer. But that would make it more work to do the observation; counting ten edits is faster than using the user edit counter. Maybe a developer could create a tool that simplifies the work, with a human being only to be needed for telling who is a content contributor and not a Foreign helper. Well, on the user table there are the number of user edits and registering time, which would really filter it. (Note that some people registration is much earlier than real edit beginning, specially with SUL automatic account creations. Plus, if the first edit just creates a user page and there're no edits on 5 months, it may not really count. OTOH, an edit in talk or project should be as relevant as one on main. So perhaps exclude edits on User: and User talk?) ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Red links as stigmergy
Gregory Maxwell wrote: I would expect, but do not have data to support: That at any time there is small subset of highly active users who actively use the MostWanted features and are personally responsible for a highly disproportionate number of new articles. I also expect that there is a much larger group of editors who learn of needed pages by discovering red-links during their own quasi-random exploration and do not use the MostWanted feature at all. I agree. There's a corpus of established editors creating many 'wanted articles', plus a large base of viewers which occasionally create an article from a red link they see. Then, you have usual editors which create an article from a red link because they found it when viewing another page, not because they searched on Special:MostWanted. I do not dare to estimate whom is creating more articles, though. An interesting point I often see as an admin is how, when a page has been deleted many times (by being created with gibberish), it always has some incoming links. It is a variant of the proposed case, as the users aren't creating good content, but they're reading and following the red link enough (here they aren't using wantedpages) to make the vandalising noise noticeable. And leave the admin wondering how, having only a few incoming links (sometimes even just one!) so much people went ahead and created it with nothing to say. Thus, I expect that good creations by random people finding a red link follow a similar pattern. ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
