Interesting. So, in summary:
- Most edits done by a small core
- But, most of the text created by the long tail
- However, most of the text that people actually read, was created by
the small core
Is that a good summary of what we know about this question?
Alain
-Original Message-
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:
--- El lun, 17/11/08, Desilets, Alain [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
De: Desilets, Alain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Asunto: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Regular contributor
Para: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Fecha: lunes, 17 noviembre, 2008 3:00
Desilets, Alain schrieb:
Interesting. So, in summary:
- Most edits done by a small core
- But, most of the text created by the long tail
- However, most of the text that people actually read, was created by
the small core
Is that a good summary of what we know about this question?
Oh...
From the way that some of you have been carrying the discussion, it seems as
if some here feel comfortable deriving generalizable claims that culd ring
true across the Wikiverse, as if the very substance of certain Wikipedia
articles wouldn't have an inherent and significant bearing on the
--- El lun, 17/11/08, Desilets, Alain [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
One thing that struck me this AM is that, while most of
Wikipedia MAY
have been written by a small core, it is doubtful that you
would have
been able to recruit that small core without a massively
collaborative
platform. In
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
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
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
