Slashdot Log In
Who (Really) Writes Wikipedia
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Tue Sep 05, 2006 07:27 AM
from the wisdom-of-wikis dept.
from the wisdom-of-wikis dept.
Nico ? La ! writes "Aaron Swartz questions Jimbo Wales' (Wikimedia's founder) belief and evangelized truth that only around 500 people are the most important contributors to Wikipedia. Whereas the truth is that they probably are the people who do the most editing. From the post: 'For example, the largest portion of the Anaconda article was written by a user who only made 2 edits to it (and only 100 on the entire site). By contrast, the largest number of edits were made by a user who appears to have contributed no text to the final article (the edits were all deleting things and moving things around).'" Which ultimately means that Wikipedia in some ways much more closely mimics a real encyclopedia, with many contributors writing the bulk of the content, but a small group massaging that text to insure standards compliance with the overall work. Interesting thing there and worth your time, although the super-computer thing doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Anaconda (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
More Statistics & What I Expect (Score:5, Interesting)
What about these statistics [wikimedia.org]? Could Wales perhaps post average number of edits per page with a standard distribution? What about the same for average number of users contributing to page? What about statistics for average number of characters changed per edit?
Things that have many books written about them are going to be edited by a lot of people that read those books (like The Beatles [wikipedia.org]). But if I want to read up on Procul Harum [wikipedia.org] (A not-so-well-known rock band), I'm assuming that there is some die hard nutjob out there with two children named Procul and Harum that filled in most of the information in that page.
Is this a good thing? Well, yes and no. I think The Beatles' entry holds to more rigorous standards than Procul Harum's on account of the possibility of one person unintentionally inserting their personal views into Wikipedia. For instance, "Known as the World's Greatest Rock Band" may be appropriate for The Beatles' page but not for Procul Harum's. Yet, we all know how insane fans treat their favorite bands. Passion and emotion are not useful tools when authoring Wikipedia or history in general. And that, in my opinion, is Wikipedia's greatest hinderance.
Re:More Statistics & What I Expect (Score:5, Insightful)
But on the other hand, the more people view an article the more it is likely to be corrected and balanced for NPOV. This is a little-bit like free market price-correcting mechanisms - it isn't perfect, but in the opinion of many the results are fairly acceptable.
Parent
Re:More Statistics & What I Expect (Score:5, Insightful)
The more people that view an article the more likely the article is to reflect the views of more people. Sometimes that will tend towards a NPOV and sometimes not. The article will increasingly reflect popular opinion (which may not be neutral at all).
"it isn't perfect, but in the opinion of many the results are fairly acceptable."
Perhaps, but not definitive. How do you justify that claim?
When an article can be objective without threatening the views of people it stands a decent chance of being so. Wikipedia is, by its nature, not an objective resource. It is a useful one, though.
Parent
Or ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:More Statistics & What I Expect (Score:2, Informative)
Just thought it was an interesting tidbit given the two bands you used for your example
Lies! (Score:3, Funny)
Define: Important (Score:5, Insightful)
Encyclopedias are measured by the number of articles they have, the average size of those articles and the "Quality" of the articles [here see other disputes
Of course, without the initial contribution of a large number of specialists, the working draft of many articles would never get done. These are the specialist-article-experts who know what they know, and leave the rest to others.
So, this is likely to be another case of everyone having some of the truth and only a more enlightened, liberal view of the situation can lead to insights which can be used to improve the entire content creation process.
Re:Define: Important (Score:5, Interesting)
Depends what you mean by quality - grammatically correct and logically ordered is one thing. Actual content - possibly in rough and ready form - is another.
What JW is (apparently) arguing is that what he considers the contributions to wikipedia is best measured by "edits", and that by this metric there is a hardcore of 500 users that do most of the work.
What the article argues is that the a better measure of of contribution to wiki is raw material, and that far from 500 people doing it, it is actually orders of magnitude more than this.
My opinion is that anyone treating all edits are equal and using that to derive a metric for measuring user contributions to the site is using a seriously flawed method. Selling the output of this method as "The Truth about who Created Wikipeida (or the Tale of the Noble 500") is just trying to invent history to fit their preconceived notions.
Parent
They still don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
The obsession over edit count was the reason I stopped contributing to Wikipedia to begin with: My voice wasn't being heard because I did not have the time to make thousands of changes to the encyclopedia.
The fact that we are still having this discussion indicates that little has changed.
Re:They still don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Case in point, clicking on the "vote in the board of trustees election" link from the article says this:
"Wikimedia Board of Trustees election
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Sorry, you are not qualified to vote in this election here on the English Wikipedia. You need to have made 400 edits here before 00:00, 1 August 2006; you have made 253. Also, your first edit on this
Re:They still don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Aren't those edits how you're getting your voice heard? Or were you more concerned with gaining credibility among the Wikipedia inner cicle?
Parent
Your voice is still not being heard (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Your voice is still not being heard (Score:4, Interesting)
You miss the OP's point - reputation isn't made by proving an understanding of the goals, or by contributing articles - it's made by amassing a large number of edits. They key problem with this is that and edit can be anything - even a quick spelling correction earns you a line in your earns you a line in your 'user contributions' log, and creating a new article equally gains you single line...
Parent
Wiki Language Issue (Score:4, Interesting)
Another large contributor by number of edits is GuanoBot who's only job is to bypass redirects.
Are these bots that are helpful skewing the statistics because they are needed for maintenance?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
not quite like a real encyclopedia ... (Score:5, Informative)
Nope, this small group is tweaking the text the way they see fit, basing their changes on their personal opinions and feelings and not on some god-given inspiration that leads to better quality or with standards compliance in mind. So the conclusion above is almost valid - it is like a real encyclopedia, but with an anarchic structure in the team of editors and no educated QA team. It's more like an encyclopedia reworked by a non-cooperating team of censors.
Re:not quite like a real encyclopedia ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:not quite like a real encyclopedia ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:not quite like a real encyclopedia ... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Editcountitis (Score:5, Interesting)
It is my personal experience that those with the highest edit counts peruse any and all articles applying Style Guidelines. This results in changes like like correcting capitalization of headers ("External Links" -> "External links"), placing bullets in front of external links, formatting dates, wikifying appropriate words, updating links that redirect, etc. Once a person becomes familiar with the guidelines they can easily nitpick pretty much any article and find something to correct (or at least change to their personal preference).
Also, don't forget those that run bots. That's a very easy method to rack up edit points.
Dan East
Re:Editcountitis (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikipedia is not a video game where you need to gain exp-points to level. It is an encyclopedia. People spending their days correcting punctuation are also contributing and if ranking higher in the statistics is their motivation, that is fine by me.
Those who make great contributions in the form of content are recognized in another way then statistics: their articles become featured, and that is a far greater honor then beeing the top contributor by means of spellchecking.
Parent
Re:Editcountitis (Score:5, Interesting)
It *pretends* to be an encyclopedia. It is not, however. Due to its very nature it is a mixture of current thought and old grudges, with the latter being less influential. Calling it an encyclopedia is like mixing all Slashdot comments into one comment and modding it informative.
Parent
Re:Editcountitis (Score:5, Insightful)
Encyclopedias are reference sources containing information on a variety of topics. (Don't believe me? Take a look at the many definitions Google pulls up for the query "Define:encyclopedia".) Wikipedia is a reference source which contains information on a variety of topics in an explicitly encyclopedic format. Case Closed. Issues of quality and reliability are entirely separate and unrelated.
Parent
Re:Editcountitis (Score:4, Informative)
This reply emphasizes my point. Instead of arguing the actual point, you degrade the general meaning of encyclopedia for a strict defintion, allowing even a cheap substitute that *techincally* fits the bill to be considered on par.
Encyclopedias are reference sources containing information on a variety of topics.
Well, i usually call those books. And, there's this amazing place called a "library" that is full of them. They sometimes have web pages, but even so, being actually in one--other than for the free internet access--is a breathtaking experience. Seriously, you should try it once. And remember "books". Say it a few times. When you get there, ask were are the "books". Do not ask where encyclopedias are, for they are a subclass of books and will lead you elsewhere. Just ask where the "books" are.
(Don't believe me? Take a look at the many definitions Google pulls up for the query "Define:encyclopedia".)
Amazing. You should be refering to a dictionary (site). (Yeah yeah, now tell me that according to google, google definitions are a dictionary.)
Wikipedia is a reference source
All sources are referential. By definition.
which contains information on a variety of topics
Oh, so a dictionary is also an encyclopedia? Or maybe the US Code? Or how about the Mac OS bible?
in an explicitly encyclopedic format.
In an "encyclopedic" format. Let's see, according to you, enclclopedias "are reference sources containing information on a variety of topics". So, to translate this last senctence of "Wikipedia is a reference source which contains information on a variety of topics in an explicitly encyclopedic format." you mean "Wikipedia is a reference source which contains information on a variety of topics in a referential way containing information on a variety of topics." That doesn't say anything. It also makes my bookmarks menu an encylopedia.
Case Closed.
Wow. Does that make you feel better?
Issues of quality and reliability are entirely separate and unrelated.
I'm sorry to hear you didn't like your teacher last year. Perhaps you will do well when school starts again this year.
===================
As everyone knows, an encyclopedia is a defintive source of information, based on aggregated knowledge, compiled by a specific person or group of persons, being editted over time, and not changing much from year to year, with either sources given, or personal accounts listed (the latter explicity forbidden in wikpedia). Popularity of the information has no bearing on what is presented either, being it must come from trusted sources, or personal discovery.
Further, any published information in an encyclopedia can be reference at any future time without regard to changes, all articles are numbered (by year and entry), and if there is a specific question on the validity of the information presented, the person or group of persons will stand behind it and say exactly why they published it (even if changed due to later discoveries).
Wikipedia, however, cannot be cited. Since articles change, and there is no way to reference a specific version of it, and noone will stand behind iot if it changes. And, personal discovery being inadmissable, it can never be a first-hand source of information either.
Also, people relying on the information are relying on the person or group of persons who published it. Wikipedia relies on noone, and thus does not put anyone's name behind it. While data might be data, without personal research (which would obviate the need for an encyclopedia) the presenter of the data is being relied on. Making the point of someone standing behind it to be very important.
All in all, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. It is a wikipedia, and a good one at that.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Much like Digg (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Much like Digg (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I think this policy of focusing on total edits for Wikiality is brilliant: it keeps the generalists/prestige mongers focusing on copy editing -- where they can help -- and away from content creation -- where they usually can't. Wikipedia is largely the creation of a bunch of specialist nuts. The "Wiki-Elite" are the nuts whose speciality is Wikipedia. Better to keep them away from the content; otherwise, it's akin to having someone with a degree in journalism reporting on a technical issue.
Parent
Duh, they design it that way (Score:2)
Re:Duh, they design it that way (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Duh, they design it that way (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Duh, they design it that way (Score:4, Insightful)
Other than that, there's Gregory Lauder-Frost, which is protected apparently because he threatened to sue, and a couple of other extremely controversial topics that have been protected for over 2 months. Nothing has been protected "indefinitely" unless by that you mean "longer that you're willing to wait for unprotection".
Parent
types of editors (Score:5, Informative)
Massaging the Text (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, t3h 1r0n4y! It's ensure. Unless standards compliance has some sort of liability associated with it these days.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The are indeed interchangeable. See the usage note here [answers.com].
Ignore that man (Score:5, Insightful)
Jimmy Wales is wrong, and probably on purpose...
There is no glory in being one of a million diffuse contributors.
But there *is* glory in being one of a small elite group, the group that really matters, the group that the founder adores. Jimmy is baiting his contributors with this possibility, in order to motivate them.
Isn't this just the 'Long Tail' of Wikipedia? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you only know a few bits of information, you're not about to post to more articles than you can contribute to.
If you know how things are supposed to look under wiki-formatting but not about its actual content, then you're just going to 'fairy' up the text with links and bolding and breaking chunks up into paragraphs, but you're going to do a lot MORE of it because while Wikipedia only needs a certain amount of information, it always needs wiki-fairies to make it all look coherent.
Edit count, like post and reply counts on any forum (including Slashdot) is a great big joke, and anyone who doesn't get that hasn't been on long enough.
Nobody is the most important (Score:4, Interesting)
It's true, though they're still important edits (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You can type on a keyboard while wearing a fursuit?!!?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The good and the bad (Score:4, Insightful)
An encyclopedia is not (IMHO) supposed to contain articles that are highly controversial and subject to different interpretations. It should be about objective and verifiable facts. 90% of the articles on wikipedia that are non-technical contain maybe 10% of verifiable facts, and 90% noise.
The sad truth is that the high visibility of wikipedia (Google Searches usually point to wikipedia articles on the search subject first or second or third, if an article on the subject exists) means that people READ all this nonsense and, unaware of the many problems of wikipedia, assume it to be the truth based on a facade of legitimacy that wikipedia presents (at least, as far as the cats I listd above are concerned). These edits that are put there by cabals of editors, many of whom hold extremist views or represent organisations that have such extremist views are thus propagated into the masses of readers as facts, without the right balance to them, which is very damaging.
That's what I think anyways, feel free to flame me down or whatever. Any replies and/or responses would be interesting to me as it would give me an idea as to how many people on slashdot regard wikipedia articles as canonically true and always NPOV.
~~~~
Alternatives to edit counts (Score:4, Interesting)
The "edit count" fanaticism is indeed a problem for Wikipedia. The edit histories of some of the editors with the highest edit counts are disappointing. Some of them never actually write anything; they just make administrative edits. Others make vast numbers of very minor edits.
Better metrics are possible. A metric like "number of words added which stayed in an article for at least 30 days" would measure useful contributions.
But this isn't the real problem with Wikipedia. The real problem is "churn". Articles do not steadily improve over time. They typically reach about 80% of the "good article" level, and then slowly change over time, with edits of varying quality.
For a striking example of this, see Horse [wikipedia.org]. Take a look at the article at three month intervals. The article is so heavily edited that it changes almost completely every few months. Yet today's version is really no better than the versions from three and six months ago. That's churn.
Insure standards please (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
That high?!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Of course! Those dastardly mails, white and brown and purple.
I bet you it's all because of postal workers -- I mean, if you were raised by postal workers, you'd be lacking in social skills, too!