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" vls.WP has, because they are only three guys who know each other well. I have counted with the help of "Recent Changes", and looked closer at those Wikipedians who did at least one edit in one specific week. Otherwise I would not have known where to look. Maybe I should look longer that a week (like three months and then drop the six-months-ago-first-edit-criterion), but that would mean a lot of more work, at least in those bigger Wikipedias. I have chosen a minimum of 10 edits because Wikimedia Statistics does so for "Wikipedians". It seems enough to see wether a person (usually an I.P.) shows interest only in one specific article he wants to set right, but is not interested in editing after that. By the way, if I would shorten the six months (first edit) to three, the number of regular contributors would raise from 71 to 80. May be suitable as well. I consider only speakers of the language concerned because only they can contribute sence having text (it does not matter whether they contribute a lot of content, but that they can do). The Foreign Helpers are very important, but secondary. They would not "exist" if speakers of the language had not created content etc. One cannot do interwiki linking and anti-vandalism if there is no WP or no article. Ziko 2008/10/22 Han-Teng Liao (OII) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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 develop a way to define a 'regular > contributor'....in eo.WP" rather than "I calculated a..." because it is not > a pure math calculation but a definition with your own making (and the > following credits AND responsibility). > > The below is a point-to-point critique and suggestions... > > * made at least one edit in that week > --It seems arbitrary to come up with a number within a certain time frame. > Again, if you can come up with a distribution of edits over contributors, > either through previous study or your study, that the contributors who match > your profile have made 75% of the new edits in the past month (the time > frame issue still needs to be sorted out about the frequency of edits), it > will be much convincing.... > > * obviously speaks Esperanto (is no "foreign helper" like someone who > does Interwiki linking) > --If your research question is about actual content contributor in the > strict sense, then you might "exclude" those foreign helpers. However, you > have take that as limitation because you might lose those who provide > foreign links then have real impact on the content. To my limited > experience in Chinese Wikipedia, these happen quiet often in entries and > issues that involve East Asian or Sino-US context. > > * made his first edit at least six months ago > --Again, it seems arbitrary. If you can come up a distribution of users' > contribution over time (i.e. frequency), you might be able to develop a > matrix that can include certain amount of people that you call "regular > contributors). You have to acknowledge that you exclude the newbies with > this because you, again, cite previous research or use common sense, > suggesting most of the newbies are not becoming "regular contributors". > Still if you do so, you have to follow up on your research to see whether it > is true that those newbies do become "regular contributors" will not have > significant impact on your results and analysis. > > > * made at least ten edits at all > --Again, it seems arbitrary. Find the overall profile. Define your > questions. Determine the selection threshold and be ready to defend your > picks with previous research or common sense. > > > > > Ziko van Dijk wrote: > > Hello, > >From time to time I ask myself (and others) what is a "regular > contributor" to a Wikipedia language edition. According to "Tell us > about your Wikipedia" the definitions are quite different. > At eo.WP I once checked a week long (in this August) who was making > edits, and I calculated a "regular contributor" if someone > * made at least one edit in that week > * obviously speaks Esperanto (is no "foreign helper" like someone who > does Interwiki linking) > * made his first edit at least six months ago > * made at least ten edits at all > My result was: 71, compared to 141 "active users" and 50 "very active > users" (Wikimedia Statistics, May 2008). > What do you think about this definition? > Kind regards > Ziko van Dijk > > > > > -- > Liao,Han-Teng > DPhil student at the OII(web) > needs you(blog) > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > -- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
