Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

--- El lun, 17/11/08, Platonides <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > De: Platonides <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Asunto: Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor" > Para: wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Fecha: lunes, 17 noviembre, 2008 9:42 > Felipe Ortega w

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

Felipe Ortega wrote: > I also have my doubts about the filtering conditions. For > instance, in eswiki, 'BOTpolicia' is not registered as such > and it's responsible for more than 90.000 edits, so far. On > the other hand, a famous user in eswiki (retired for this > moment, id=13770 to be precise)

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 "use

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 diffe

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

--- 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 > pla

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

--- El lun, 17/11/08, Desilets, Alain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > De: Desilets, Alain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Asunto: RE: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor" > Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Research into Wikimedia content and communities" > > Fe

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

Solved a slight problem with permissions. It should work now, sorry. Best, F --- El lun, 17/11/08, Felipe Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > De: Felipe Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Asunto: Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor" > Para: "

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

>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 demogra

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

On Monday 17 November 2008, Daniel Kinzler wrote: > > - 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 questi

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

> 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 abou

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

> > 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? > > > > I

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

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?

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

--- 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" > > Fecha: lunes

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

IL PROTECTED]> > Asunto: RE: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor" > Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Research into Wikimedia content and communities" > > Fecha: lunes, 17 noviembre, 2008 2:36 > Thx. Do you have the URL, or title? I can't find it on > the web.

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

age- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:wiki- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Reid Priedhorsky > Sent: November 16, 2008 9:50 PM > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor" > > Platonides wro

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

research-l] "Regular contributor" > > --- El vie, 14/11/08, Desilets, Alain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > escribió: > > > De: Desilets, Alain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Asunto: RE: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor" > > Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:wiki- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Platonides > Sent: November 15, 2008 10:36 AM > To: wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor" > > Desilets, Alain wrot

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

Platonides wrote: > > Desilets, Alain wrote: >> >> Regarding this, I have had heard different stories about >> contributors. >> >> I seem to recall one study that concluded that, while 85% of the >> **edits** are done by a small core of contributors, if you take a >> random page and select a sen

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

--- El vie, 14/11/08, Desilets, Alain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > De: Desilets, Alain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Asunto: RE: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor" > Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Research into Wikimedia content and communities" >

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

--- El vie, 14/11/08, Erik Zachte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > De: Erik Zachte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Asunto: RE: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor" > Para: "'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'" > , [EMAIL PROTECTED] &g

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

--- El vie, 14/11/08, Erik Zachte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > De: Erik Zachte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Asunto: RE: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor" > Para: "'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'" > , [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

Desilets, Alain wrote: > Regarding this, I have had heard different stories about contributors. > > I seem to recall one study that concluded that, while 85% of the **edits** > are done by a small core of contributors, if you take a random page and > select a sentence from it, this sentence is m

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

it's a > fairly crucial piece of information that we should have a clear handle on as > a research community. > > Alain > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:wiki- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Felipe Ortega > > Sent: Novembe

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

mmunity. Alain > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:wiki- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Felipe Ortega > Sent: November 13, 2008 5:33 PM > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor&q

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

Behalf Of Ziko van Dijk Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 23:37 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Research into Wikimedia content and communities Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor" Hello Felipe, Maybe we speak about different things now. At http://stats.wikime

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

, Erik From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ziko van Dijk Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 23:37 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Research into Wikimedia content and communities Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor" Hello Felipe, Maybe we s

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

Hello Felipe, Maybe we speak about different things now. At http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/BotActivityMatrix.htm *de * *ja * *fr * *it

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

AIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > De: Gerard Meijssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Asunto: Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor" > Para: "Research into Wikimedia content and communities" > > Fecha: jueves, 23 octubre, 2008 10:27 > Hoi, > I missed that t

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

Hi, Erik, and all. IMHO, it would be a good idea...but not definitely an urgent one. In our analyses on the top-ten Wikipedias, we found that bots contributions introduced very few noise in data (to be precise statistically, it was not significant at all). You also have the additional problem

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

content and communities > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor" > > > > Dear Erik, > > > On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, Erik Zachte wrote: > > > [...] > > > > For instance in eo: 54% of total edits for all time were bot edits, > but mo

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

Dear Erik, On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, Erik Zachte wrote: > [...] > > For instance in eo: 54% of total edits for all time were bot edits, but most > of these will be from recent years, so the percentage will be even higher > for recent years. > > http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/BotActivityMatrix.htm I

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

Hoi, I missed that this was the research mailing list.. my fault. Consequently my answer was not appropriate. With this in mind, it is interesting to learn how the spread is in particularly the smaller projects. In my opinion there must be a certain amount of productive people in order to get to a

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

Hello, I have distinguished four ways of counting Wikipedians: - Wikimedia Statistics, with "Wikipedians", "active" and "very active users"; like often, Zachte's Statistics are great, but easily misleading. -Looking at user pages with babel lists; but not all active people have babel lists (or use

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

Dear Ziko, No worries about limitations. The rule is usually simple. Acknowledge them or overcome them, but do not hide them. Still, I am not sure if your goal is a method to be applied by all Wikipedia researchers, you can do without strong empirical data. A universal method requires strong

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

A statistician once told me that it is ok to divide people into groups and to collect statistics on those groups. However, it is not ok to apply those statistics to individuals in that group. There be racism and much other dysfunctional reasoning. -- Ward __ Ward Cunningham

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

2008/10/21 Gerard Meijssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Hoi, > When you divide people up in groups, when you single out the ones "most > valuable", you in effect divide the community. Whatever you base your > metrics on, there will be sound arguments to deny the point of view. When it > is about the numb

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

On Tuesday 21 October 2008, Ziko van Dijk wrote: > ::Archived at: http://marc.info/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hello, > >From time to time I ask myself (and others) what is a "regular > contributor" to a Wikipedia language edition. How categories are constituted are central to the findings one claims.

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

Dear Han-Teng, Thank you for the substantial answer, which helps me to go on. My problem is that my technical skills are limited, and I am also looking for methods that can easily be applied by all Wikipedia researchers (and to all WPs). There is no problem to tell how many "regular contributors"

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

Put the philosophical questions aside, "analytical" categories (rather than social categories) should be linked to your research questions.  Analytical categories should thus not be universal in this sense, but rather are tied back to your research questions. I guess it is better to say, "I de

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

Hoi, When you divide people up in groups, when you single out the ones "most valuable", you in effect divide the community. Whatever you base your metrics on, there will be sound arguments to deny the point of view. When it is about the number of edits, it is clear to the pure encyclopedistas that

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

Liam Wyatt wrote: > > > More to the point: > What is the point to your agressive reply? If you're not interested in > this thread then you are not obliged to be snarky about it. > -Liam I don't think Gerard is trying to be aggressive. The point is, everyone has a different understanding of "re

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

More to the point: What is the point to your agressive reply? If you're not interested in this thread then you are not obliged to be snarky about it. -Liam On 22/10/2008, at 4:10, "Gerard Meijssen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hoi, What is the point to the question, are regular contributo

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"

Hoi, What is the point to the question, are regular contributors entitled to wear a halo or will they get wings to go with the halo ? Thanks, GerardM On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Ziko van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Hello, > From time to time I ask myself (and others) what is a "r