Who (Really) Writes Wikipedia

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.

not quite like a real encyclopedia ...

[Lazy Jones]

...but a small group massaging that text to insure standards compliance with the overall work.

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.

types of editors

[gEvil (beta)]

I think the problem is arising because of lack of distinction between two different types of "editors." There are people who edit the content of an article (content editors), and there are people who edit the copy (copyeditors). One is concerned with altering the actual material that is being presented to present a different subset of information. The other is concerned with making edits for grammatical consistency, readability, and style.

Re:Duh, they design it that way

[TheSeer2]

1. Jew's isn't protected. 2. Apart from a select few vulnerable pages [for example, the vandalism page] protection is usually dropped very rapidly. 3. I've seen many heavily edited articles that have never been protected... ever. 4. Profit!!! ... don't make unsubstaniated claims.

Re:More Statistics & What I Expect

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you know that John Lennon said that "Whiter Shade of Pale" (by Procol Harum for those who don't know) was the greatest song of 1967 ... the same year that Sgt. Pepper came out?

Just thought it was an interesting tidbit given the two bands you used for your example ;)

It's in the Song's Entry

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you know that John Lennon said that "Whiter Shade of Pale" (by Procol Harum for those who don't know) was the greatest song of 1967 ... the same year that Sgt. Pepper came out?

I did know that and, in fact, the Wikipedia entry for that song [wikipedia.org] had something on it:

It has been said that John Lennon, in 1967, loved this song so much that he would listen to it through headphones over and over during long journeys in the back of his limo. Upon reaching his destination, he would remain lying on the back seat, saying he had to hear it just a few more times before getting out of the car.

I realized this tidbit when I posted this. I like bands that influence my favorite bands and I love both these bands.

Did you know that Procol Harum has had 13 albums which didn't do very well in the states but did excellent in the UK?

eldavojohn

Re:Editcountitis

[Anonymous Coward]

Voting privileges and how much people listen to you in disputes is based on edit count. This creates definite problems.

Re:not quite like a real encyclopedia ...

[interiot]

Well, there are also lots of policies about what should stay and what may be deleted, and newcommers don't always know those either. Optimally, existing contributors may be able to detail exactly what sort of content might be better, or where your content might be better suited (eg. your aunt's favorite recipe doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but it does belong on wikibooks [wikibooks.org]), but often you'll just get a link to a general policy or a mention of it. If you're contributing articles about something not directly related to you (eg. not about your band, your company, or your favorite blog), then don't get discouraged, try to spend a more time reading existing articles and try to model new articles after those (though ignore the pokemon articles, all of wikipedia isn't totally enamoured with them).

It's true, though they're still important edits

[greenreaper]

We had a session about it [wikimedia.org] at Wikimania 2006. It confirmed my own experiences as founder of WikiFur [wikia.com]. I rarely get the time to make content edits, as "management" issues take priority.

Re:Massaging the Text

[Scaba]

The are indeed interchangeable. See the usage note here [answers.com].

Re:Editcountitis

[Chacham]

Please. An encyclopedia is a form and genre, not a classification of quality.

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.

Re:They still don't get it

[Metasquares]

I agree with the article. I disagree with Wales. The author of the article does not run Wikipedia, however.

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 wiki was at 13:59, 30 August 2003; it needs to be before 00:00, 3 May 2006.

You may be eligible to vote on another Wikimedia project where you are active. If so, please visit that project and try again. Thank you!"