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 sentence from it, this sentence is more >> likely to be the result of edits by contributors from the "long >> tail" than core contributors. I forget the reference for that study >> though. >> >> Does someone on this list have solid information about this? I >> think it's a fairly crucial piece of information that we should >> have a clear handle on as a research community. >> >> Alain > > It was a research by Aaron Swartz > http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia
I led a study last year that found that the long tail was even longer than it usually is (i.e., the "elite" contributors contribute even more than they would be expected to). Specifically, the 0.1% of editors who edited the most times contributed about half the "value" of Wikipedia, when value is measured by words times views. http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~reid/papers/group282-priedhorsky.pdf End of shameless plug. ;) Reid _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
