The issue was discussed a bit in 2008 under the title "Regular
contributor", see the thread here:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2008-November/000672.html
I have attempted to summarize the issue in the section "User
contribution" here:
"Wikipedia research and tools: Review and comments."
http://www2.compute.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/edoc_download.php/6012/pdf/imm6012.pdf
There is also a few pointers in the "Participation Trends" section in
our "The people's encyclopedia under the gaze of the sages: A systematic
review of scholarly research on Wikipedia"
http://orbit.dtu.dk/fedora/objects/orbit:119482/datastreams/file_73b48cd3-a711-4a7b-99ce-0dda59bc6bd0/content
One interesting original study is this one: "Creating, Destroying, and
Restoring Value in Wikipedia" from 2007 by
Reid Priedhorsky and others.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1316624.1316663
They conclude:
"We show that 1/10th of 1% of editors contributed nearly half
of the value, measured by words read."
best regards
Finn Årup Nielsen
On 06/23/2015 04:46 PM, Krzysztof Gajewski wrote:
Hi all,
I wonder if you know if somebody verified and / or further researched
Aaron Swartz's thesis on structure of Wikipedia participation. You can
find it here: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia
Best,
Krzysztof Gajewski
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
Finn Årup Nielsen
http://people.compute.dtu.dk/faan/
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
