"Regular contributor"

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
36 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

"Regular contributor"

Ziko van Dijk
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


--
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Regular contributor"

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
What is the point to the question, are regular contributors entitled to wear a halo or will they get wings to go with the halo ?
Thanks,
       GerardM

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Ziko van Dijk <[hidden email]> 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


--
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Regular contributor"

Liam Wyatt


More to the point: 
What is the point to your agressive reply? If you're not interested in this thread then you are not obliged to be snarky about it. 
-Liam

On 22/10/2008, at 4:10, "Gerard Meijssen" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hoi,
What is the point to the question, are regular contributors entitled to wear a halo or will they get wings to go with the halo ?
Thanks,
       GerardM

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Ziko van Dijk <[hidden email]> 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


--
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Regular contributor"

Matthew Flaschen
Liam Wyatt wrote:
>
>
> More to the point:
> What is the point to your agressive reply? If you're not interested in
> this thread then you are not obliged to be snarky about it.
> -Liam

I don't think Gerard is trying to be aggressive.  The point is, everyone
 has a different understanding of "regular".  It is inherently
subjective, and there is no point in trying to agree on a definition.
It makes more sense just to say explicitly, e.g.

"This study will focus on contributors who made more than 50 edits in
the last year" [or whatever].

on a case by case basis.

Matt Flaschen

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Regular contributor"

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Liam Wyatt
Hoi,
When you divide people up in groups, when you single out the ones "most valuable", you in effect divide the community. Whatever you base your metrics on, there will be sound arguments to deny the point of view. When it is about the number of edits, it is clear to the pure encyclopedistas that most of the policy wonks have not supported what is the "real" aim of the project.

When you label groups of people, you divide them and it is exactly the egalitarian aspect that makes the community thrive. It is when people put themselves apart when friction makes an appearance. A good example is the speed used for mindless speedy deletions as was documented in an episode of "Not the Wikipedia Weekly".

So it is not that I am not interested, it is that I find it a fundamentally bad idea that I am "snarky" about it..
Thanks,
       GerardM

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/snarky

2008/10/22 Liam Wyatt <[hidden email]>


More to the point: 
What is the point to your agressive reply? If you're not interested in this thread then you are not obliged to be snarky about it. 
-Liam

On 22/10/2008, at 4:10, "Gerard Meijssen" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hoi,
What is the point to the question, are regular contributors entitled to wear a halo or will they get wings to go with the halo ?
Thanks,
       GerardM

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Ziko van Dijk <[hidden email][hidden email]> 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


--
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email][hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l



_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Regular contributor"

Han-Teng Liao (OII)
In reply to this post by Ziko van Dijk
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


  



_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Regular contributor"

Ziko van Dijk
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) <[hidden email]>:
> 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
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>



--
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Regular contributor"

Joseph Reagle
In reply to this post by Ziko van Dijk
On Tuesday 21 October 2008, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> ::Archived at: http://marc.info/?i=dcb629f40810210852i22347d92qe56f078b6e7dbc38@...
>
> Hello,
> >From time to time I ask myself (and others) what is a "regular
> contributor" to a Wikipedia language edition.

How categories are constituted are central to the findings one claims. (As Han-Teng said, these are analytical categories and we are researchers and on a research list, meaning we're not making judgements of worth, but trying to understand a phenomenon.) If one looks at the whole line of research on "elite v. bourgeoisie" it turns out that researchers' finding differ based on how they define "contribution" (small tweaks, winnowing, talk page usage, integration/flow edits) and the classes of users (elite and bourgeoisie) -- this latter point about classes of users can be seen in (Ortega and Gonzalez-Barahona 2007, Ortega and Gonzalez-Barahona 2008). But, as a (not-very-active) Wikipedian, I'm grateful for all such contributions.

In my usage of "active" users [1] and admins [2], I rely upon the natives' categorization ;).

[1]:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:About&oldid=216496280
[2]:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_administrators&oldid=170097284

Ziko's definition sounds appropriate to me and I think it's a good question as this community at some point might want to move towards consistent definitions for such things.

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Regular contributor"

Phoebe Ayers-2
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
2008/10/21 Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
Hoi,
When you divide people up in groups, when you single out the ones "most valuable", you in effect divide the community. Whatever you base your metrics on, there will be sound arguments to deny the point of view. When it is about the number of edits, it is clear to the pure encyclopedistas that most of the policy wonks have not supported what is the "real" aim of the project.

When you label groups of people, you divide them and it is exactly the egalitarian aspect that makes the community thrive.

But this isn't about labeling people for the rest of time and saying that this is how they are defined *on Wikipedia* -- it's about saying how do you study people who regularly contribute to Wikipedia, and as a part of that how do you define the group that you are studying, which is an important question for any research study.

Given that it's impossible to study every contributor to the project in every study, and since many researchers are interested in why people who spend a lot of time or effort working on Wikipedia do so (and what exactly it is they do), this is a very relevant question for this list.

--phoebe


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Regular contributor"

Ward Cunningham
A statistician once told me that it is ok to divide people into groups and to collect statistics on those groups. However, it is not ok to apply those statistics to individuals in that group. There be racism and much other dysfunctional reasoning. -- Ward

__________________
Ward Cunningham





On Oct 22, 2008, at 8:30 AM, phoebe ayers wrote:

2008/10/21 Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
Hoi,
When you divide people up in groups, when you single out the ones "most valuable", you in effect divide the community. Whatever you base your metrics on, there will be sound arguments to deny the point of view. When it is about the number of edits, it is clear to the pure encyclopedistas that most of the policy wonks have not supported what is the "real" aim of the project.

When you label groups of people, you divide them and it is exactly the egalitarian aspect that makes the community thrive.

But this isn't about labeling people for the rest of time and saying that this is how they are defined *on Wikipedia* -- it's about saying how do you study people who regularly contribute to Wikipedia, and as a part of that how do you define the group that you are studying, which is an important question for any research study.

Given that it's impossible to study every contributor to the project in every study, and since many researchers are interested in why people who spend a lot of time or effort working on Wikipedia do so (and what exactly it is they do), this is a very relevant question for this list.

--phoebe

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Regular contributor"

Han-Teng Liao (OII)
In reply to this post by Ziko van Dijk
Dear Ziko,
  No worries about limitations. The rule is usually simple.  Acknowledge
them or overcome them, but do not hide them.
  Still, I am not sure if your goal is a method to be applied by all
Wikipedia researchers, you can do without strong empirical data.  A
universal method requires strong evidence, robust mechanism, or
compelling story.
  May I suggest you if you know vls.WP version so well, you might want
to start a model from that and collect necessary data for that
particular version.  Do not assume you will find no problem in the
process.  Since your methods seem to be very quantitative, you can try
to start small from that.
  The time-edit distribution (71->80) explanation seems plausible, and
that is exactly what I have suggested earlier about determining the
threshold from the actual distribution.  You might not have the whole
distribution at this moment, but it sounds much better if you at least
provide a concrete example to explain why you pick that number.  Still,
your definition will be much more definitive if you have solid overall
data, previous study, etc.   The more supporting material you have, the
stronger the threshold number that you pick.  (you then can change "may
be" into "more likely")
  Again, as for the foreign helpers, I do think it depends on contexts
and the questions you are asking.  Try to think how do you apply that
model into minority language or dialect on other Wikipedia projects.  It
is not as simple as you imagine to be, such as Latin, Hakka, etc.  Also,
since the machine-translated content across Wikipedia, though not
allowed, is still quiet common.  You have to define what do you mean by
foreign helpers or native contributors.  It is not totally impossible
for a foreign helper to have a native account.  Some foreign helpers may
read but does not write, so their contribution pattern may be different.
  Having said that, I guess on this point you can simply say that it is
not of your research interest and treat them as outliers (as in
quantitative methods).  Do remember to document that you do so as you do.
  Some people get offended, I guess, because you seem to make a hasty
generalization and a strong definition without enough evidence. The
first version you propose "I calculate...." is very problematic in this
regard.
  Research is always a balance between making things forward and solid
steps.  The suggestions that I made are not designed to slow you down or
stop you, but rather a warm reminder that you jump too fast. Reagle's
research uses the self-reported category of "active users" can provide
some dimension on self-perception.  It might be interesting to see how
the two dimensions (perceived and edit frequency) match or mismatch in
the future.  It is through reviewing previous work that you can make
solid advance, though sometimes it is felt to be a drag.....

hanteng

Ziko van Dijk wrote:

> 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) <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
> > 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
> > [hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ziko van Dijk
> NL-Silvolde
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>  


--
*Liao <http://zhongwen.com/cgi-bin/zipux2.cgi?b5=%E5%BB%96>,Han
<http://zhongwen.com/cgi-bin/zipux2.cgi?b5=%E6%BC%A2>-Teng
<http://zhongwen.com/cgi-bin/zipux2.cgi?b5=%E9%A8%B0>*
DPhil student at the OII <http://people.oii.ox.ac.uk/hanteng/about/>(web)
needs you <http://people.oii.ox.ac.uk/hanteng/>(blog)

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Regular contributor"

Ziko van Dijk
Hello,

I have distinguished four ways of counting Wikipedians:
- Wikimedia Statistics, with "Wikipedians", "active" and "very active users"; like often, Zachte's Statistics are great, but easily misleading.
-Looking at user pages with babel lists; but not all active people have babel lists (or user pages or are registered), and some people's only edit at all is creating a user page with a babel list. Often there are many babel lists indicating level zero, sometimes even more than native speakers.
- Asking Wikipedians about what they know or what they estimate. For that, a definition is important, of course, especially for the bigger WPs. The small ones have few fluctuation.
- Counting them according to the edits people make.

I have tried to outline a workable definition, as I explained. My observations at Recent Changes show that in many tiny WPs (I call them Micro-WPs) most of the activity is vandalism, countervandalism and bot activity, mostly interwiki linking. The interwiki linking relates usually to "geographical stubs". This is true also for nearly all human "Foreign helpers": They took a picture of their home town, put it in Commons, and integrate it into articles of all language editions of that town (and the like). So, without the bot generated pseudo content there would hardly be any activity at all.

In my definition it is not important whether a foreign helper is a native speaker, he can also contribute with a lower level. If necessary, I look at the kind of edits. In nearly all cases it was very obvious whether the edit was made knowing the language or not. (Certainly if considered only editors with at least 10 edits.) For example, I am not a native speaker of Dutch, and do not often contribute to nl.WP, but according to my edits and my definition I am a "regular contributor" of nl.WP, not a Foreign helper.

Take vo.WP for example. According to WM Statistics, it has ca. 16 "very active users" a month. According to the babel lists, two persons indicate "level 2", and three "level" 1. 58 incidate "zero". Recent changes show that content contributions come only from the five people "knowing" Volapük.

My own concern with my definition is that it I should raise the minimum number of edits of a regular contributor. Also the period of observation should be longer. But that would make it more work to do the observation; counting ten edits is faster than using the "user edit counter". Maybe a developer could create a tool that simplifies the work, with a human being only to be needed for telling who is a content contributor and not a Foreign helper.

Ziko

P.S.:
I must say that I find some reactions on this mailing list a little bit strange. I am simply asking what you think about my definition of a regular contributor, trying to get a better picture of Wikipedia language editions in comparison.

I am willing to explain what I mean by this or that expression, and I stand open for all kind of suggestions to improve the definition. (Yes, a definition is finally subjective and depends on the researcher's interests.) Although I have become familiar with a number of language editions, I believe that the members of this mailing list know al lot about the issue and have ideas; and I received some good ideas for which I am grateful.

But I do not see where I am "dividing the community" or "imagine it too simple". Of course I present things first in a short version, that does not mean that I have not thought them through before asking others. (Maybe I understood some remarks wrongly, and vice versa.)



2008/10/22 Han-Teng Liao (OII) <[hidden email]>
Dear Ziko,
 No worries about limitations. The rule is usually simple.  Acknowledge
them or overcome them, but do not hide them.
 Still, I am not sure if your goal is a method to be applied by all
Wikipedia researchers, you can do without strong empirical data.  A
universal method requires strong evidence, robust mechanism, or
compelling story.
 May I suggest you if you know vls.WP version so well, you might want
to start a model from that and collect necessary data for that
particular version.  Do not assume you will find no problem in the
process.  Since your methods seem to be very quantitative, you can try
to start small from that.
 The time-edit distribution (71->80) explanation seems plausible, and
that is exactly what I have suggested earlier about determining the
threshold from the actual distribution.  You might not have the whole
distribution at this moment, but it sounds much better if you at least
provide a concrete example to explain why you pick that number.  Still,
your definition will be much more definitive if you have solid overall
data, previous study, etc.   The more supporting material you have, the
stronger the threshold number that you pick.  (you then can change "may
be" into "more likely")
 Again, as for the foreign helpers, I do think it depends on contexts
and the questions you are asking.  Try to think how do you apply that
model into minority language or dialect on other Wikipedia projects.  It
is not as simple as you imagine to be, such as Latin, Hakka, etc.  Also,
since the machine-translated content across Wikipedia, though not
allowed, is still quiet common.  You have to define what do you mean by
foreign helpers or native contributors.  It is not totally impossible
for a foreign helper to have a native account.  Some foreign helpers may
read but does not write, so their contribution pattern may be different.
 Having said that, I guess on this point you can simply say that it is
not of your research interest and treat them as outliers (as in
quantitative methods).  Do remember to document that you do so as you do.
 Some people get offended, I guess, because you seem to make a hasty
generalization and a strong definition without enough evidence. The
first version you propose "I calculate...." is very problematic in this
regard.
 Research is always a balance between making things forward and solid
steps.  The suggestions that I made are not designed to slow you down or
stop you, but rather a warm reminder that you jump too fast. Reagle's
research uses the self-reported category of "active users" can provide
some dimension on self-perception.  It might be interesting to see how
the two dimensions (perceived and edit frequency) match or mismatch in
the future.  It is through reviewing previous work that you can make
solid advance, though sometimes it is felt to be a drag.....

hanteng

Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> 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) <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
> > 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
> > [hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ziko van Dijk
> NL-Silvolde
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>


--
*Liao <http://zhongwen.com/cgi-bin/zipux2.cgi?b5=%E5%BB%96>,Han
<http://zhongwen.com/cgi-bin/zipux2.cgi?b5=%E6%BC%A2>-Teng
<http://zhongwen.com/cgi-bin/zipux2.cgi?b5=%E9%A8%B0>*
DPhil student at the OII <http://people.oii.ox.ac.uk/hanteng/about/>(web)
needs you <http://people.oii.ox.ac.uk/hanteng/>(blog)

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l



--
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Regular contributor"

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Phoebe Ayers-2
Hoi,
I missed that this was the research mailing list.. my fault. Consequently my answer was not appropriate. With this in mind, it is interesting to learn how the spread is in particularly the smaller projects. In my opinion there must be a certain amount of productive people in order to get to a community that does not have one person who is the "bus factor".

Having someone who drives the bus is really important. I wonder how you can point this person out. I think that someone who is just editing is important but it is not all that builds a community.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On the Volapuk wikipedia Smeira was really important. When he left, I understand that activity collapsed.

2008/10/22 phoebe ayers <[hidden email]>
2008/10/21 Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
Hoi,
When you divide people up in groups, when you single out the ones "most valuable", you in effect divide the community. Whatever you base your metrics on, there will be sound arguments to deny the point of view. When it is about the number of edits, it is clear to the pure encyclopedistas that most of the policy wonks have not supported what is the "real" aim of the project.

When you label groups of people, you divide them and it is exactly the egalitarian aspect that makes the community thrive.

But this isn't about labeling people for the rest of time and saying that this is how they are defined *on Wikipedia* -- it's about saying how do you study people who regularly contribute to Wikipedia, and as a part of that how do you define the group that you are studying, which is an important question for any research study.

Given that it's impossible to study every contributor to the project in every study, and since many researchers are interested in why people who spend a lot of time or effort working on Wikipedia do so (and what exactly it is they do), this is a very relevant question for this list.

--phoebe


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l



_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Regular contributor"

Felipe Ortega
You have a very similar effect in larger Wikipedias. In those ones, there is no very active, "single bus"-like contributor, but a core of very active users concentrating about 85% of the total number of edits per month.

It seems that in these languages, though, there is a generational relay in which new active users jump into the core to substitute those who eventually give up, for any reason. So, the concentration becomes stable after a couple of years (aprox.) and the encyclopedia is able to continue growing.

Best.

F.


--- El jue, 23/10/08, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> escribió:

> De: Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> Asunto: Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"
> Para: "Research into Wikimedia content and communities" <[hidden email]>
> Fecha: jueves, 23 octubre, 2008 10:27
> Hoi,
> I missed that this was the research mailing list.. my
> fault. Consequently my
> answer was not appropriate. With this in mind, it is
> interesting to learn
> how the spread is in particularly the smaller projects. In
> my opinion there
> must be a certain amount of productive people in order to
> get to a community
> that does not have one person who is the "bus
> factor".
>
> Having someone who drives the bus is really important. I
> wonder how you can
> point this person out. I think that someone who is just
> editing is important
> but it is not all that builds a community.
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
> On the Volapuk wikipedia Smeira was really important. When
> he left, I
> understand that activity collapsed.
>
> 2008/10/22 phoebe ayers <[hidden email]>
>
> > 2008/10/21 Gerard Meijssen
> <[hidden email]>
> >
> >> Hoi,
> >> When you divide people up in groups, when you
> single out the ones "most
> >> valuable", you in effect divide the
> community. Whatever you base your
> >> metrics on, there will be sound arguments to deny
> the point of view. When it
> >> is about the number of edits, it is clear to the
> pure encyclopedistas that
> >> most of the policy wonks have not supported what
> is the "real" aim of the
> >> project.
> >>
> >> When you label groups of people, you divide them
> and it is exactly the
> >> egalitarian aspect that makes the community
> thrive.
> >
> >
> > But this isn't about labeling people for the rest
> of time and saying that
> > this is how they are defined *on Wikipedia* --
> it's about saying how do you
> > study people who regularly contribute to Wikipedia,
> and as a part of that
> > how do you define the group that you are studying,
> which is an important
> > question for any research study.
> >
> > Given that it's impossible to study every
> contributor to the project in
> > every study, and since many researchers are interested
> in why people who
> > spend a lot of time or effort working on Wikipedia do
> so (and what exactly
> > it is they do), this is a very relevant question for
> this list.
> >
> > --phoebe
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


     

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Regular contributor"

alain_desilets
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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:wiki-
> [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Felipe Ortega
> Sent: November 13, 2008 5:33 PM
> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"
>
> You have a very similar effect in larger Wikipedias. In those ones,
> there is no very active, "single bus"-like contributor, but a core of
> very active users concentrating about 85% of the total number of edits
> per month.
>
> It seems that in these languages, though, there is a generational relay
> in which new active users jump into the core to substitute those who
> eventually give up, for any reason. So, the concentration becomes
> stable after a couple of years (aprox.) and the encyclopedia is able to
> continue growing.
>
> Best.
>
> F.
>
>
> --- El jue, 23/10/08, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> escribió:
>
> > De: Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> > Asunto: Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"
> > Para: "Research into Wikimedia content and communities"
> > <[hidden email]>
> > Fecha: jueves, 23 octubre, 2008 10:27
> > Hoi,
> > I missed that this was the research mailing list.. my fault.
> > Consequently my answer was not appropriate. With this in mind, it is
> > interesting to learn how the spread is in particularly the smaller
> > projects. In my opinion there must be a certain amount of productive
> > people in order to get to a community that does not have one person
> > who is the "bus factor".
> >
> > Having someone who drives the bus is really important. I wonder how
> > you can point this person out. I think that someone who is just
> > editing is important but it is not all that builds a community.
> > Thanks,
> >       GerardM
> >
> > On the Volapuk wikipedia Smeira was really important. When he left, I
> > understand that activity collapsed.
> >
> > 2008/10/22 phoebe ayers <[hidden email]>
> >
> > > 2008/10/21 Gerard Meijssen
> > <[hidden email]>
> > >
> > >> Hoi,
> > >> When you divide people up in groups, when you
> > single out the ones "most
> > >> valuable", you in effect divide the
> > community. Whatever you base your
> > >> metrics on, there will be sound arguments to deny
> > the point of view. When it
> > >> is about the number of edits, it is clear to the
> > pure encyclopedistas that
> > >> most of the policy wonks have not supported what
> > is the "real" aim of the
> > >> project.
> > >>
> > >> When you label groups of people, you divide them
> > and it is exactly the
> > >> egalitarian aspect that makes the community
> > thrive.
> > >
> > >
> > > But this isn't about labeling people for the rest
> > of time and saying that
> > > this is how they are defined *on Wikipedia* --
> > it's about saying how do you
> > > study people who regularly contribute to Wikipedia,
> > and as a part of that
> > > how do you define the group that you are studying,
> > which is an important
> > > question for any research study.
> > >
> > > Given that it's impossible to study every
> > contributor to the project in
> > > every study, and since many researchers are interested
> > in why people who
> > > spend a lot of time or effort working on Wikipedia do
> > so (and what exactly
> > > it is they do), this is a very relevant question for
> > this list.
> > >
> > > --phoebe
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > >
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Regular contributor"

Emilie OGEZ (perso)
Hello all,

I have written a blog post on preferential attachment. It could interest you:

http://www.samarkande.com/blog/2008/10/09/wikipedia-et-lattachement-preferentiel/

The post is in French, sorry; but you will find in it links to Englis pages like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-08-11/Growth_study

And here is another link concerning participation (by the famous Jakob Nielsen): http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html

Cheers,



Emilie Ogez

Marketing & Communication Manager

T: (+33) 01.45.42.40.90
Mob: (+33) 06.23.41.43.68
E: [hidden email]
http://www.xwiki.com
Chat: Skype: ogez.emilie
Contact Me: LinkedinFacebookPlaxoTwitterFriendfeed




2008/11/14 Desilets, Alain <[hidden email]>
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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]
> [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Felipe Ortega
> Sent: November 13, 2008 5:33 PM
> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"
>
> You have a very similar effect in larger Wikipedias. In those ones,
> there is no very active, "single bus"-like contributor, but a core of
> very active users concentrating about 85% of the total number of edits
> per month.
>
> It seems that in these languages, though, there is a generational relay
> in which new active users jump into the core to substitute those who
> eventually give up, for any reason. So, the concentration becomes
> stable after a couple of years (aprox.) and the encyclopedia is able to
> continue growing.
>
> Best.
>
> F.
>
>
> --- El jue, 23/10/08, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> escribió:
>
> > De: Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> > Asunto: Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"
> > Para: "Research into Wikimedia content and communities"
> > <[hidden email]>
> > Fecha: jueves, 23 octubre, 2008 10:27
> > Hoi,
> > I missed that this was the research mailing list.. my fault.
> > Consequently my answer was not appropriate. With this in mind, it is
> > interesting to learn how the spread is in particularly the smaller
> > projects. In my opinion there must be a certain amount of productive
> > people in order to get to a community that does not have one person
> > who is the "bus factor".
> >
> > Having someone who drives the bus is really important. I wonder how
> > you can point this person out. I think that someone who is just
> > editing is important but it is not all that builds a community.
> > Thanks,
> >       GerardM
> >
> > On the Volapuk wikipedia Smeira was really important. When he left, I
> > understand that activity collapsed.
> >
> > 2008/10/22 phoebe ayers <[hidden email]>
> >
> > > 2008/10/21 Gerard Meijssen
> > <[hidden email]>
> > >
> > >> Hoi,
> > >> When you divide people up in groups, when you
> > single out the ones "most
> > >> valuable", you in effect divide the
> > community. Whatever you base your
> > >> metrics on, there will be sound arguments to deny
> > the point of view. When it
> > >> is about the number of edits, it is clear to the
> > pure encyclopedistas that
> > >> most of the policy wonks have not supported what
> > is the "real" aim of the
> > >> project.
> > >>
> > >> When you label groups of people, you divide them
> > and it is exactly the
> > >> egalitarian aspect that makes the community
> > thrive.
> > >
> > >
> > > But this isn't about labeling people for the rest
> > of time and saying that
> > > this is how they are defined *on Wikipedia* --
> > it's about saying how do you
> > > study people who regularly contribute to Wikipedia,
> > and as a part of that
> > > how do you define the group that you are studying,
> > which is an important
> > > question for any research study.
> > >
> > > Given that it's impossible to study every
> > contributor to the project in
> > > every study, and since many researchers are interested
> > in why people who
> > > spend a lot of time or effort working on Wikipedia do
> > so (and what exactly
> > > it is they do), this is a very relevant question for
> > this list.
> > >
> > > --phoebe
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > >
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Regular contributor"

Platonides
In reply to this post by alain_desilets
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


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Regular contributor"

Felipe Ortega
In reply to this post by alain_desilets
--- El vie, 14/11/08, Desilets, Alain <[hidden email]> escribió:

> De: Desilets, Alain <[hidden email]>
> Asunto: RE: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"
> Para: [hidden email], "Research into Wikimedia content and communities" <[hidden email]>
> Fecha: viernes, 14 noviembre, 2008 2:32
> 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.
>

Hi, Alain. Yes, the study is by Aaron Schwartz. It was a base
premise in our last paper at HICSS 08, comparing his statement
to the theory of Jimmy Wales about the core of very active users.

Actually, both are right (more or less :) ). If you look at it
from the "per_user" perspective, the core can be identified
very precisely.

But your question is focused on "per_article" statistics. It's
logical to expect so, since the distribution of distinct authors
per article follows a stepped power-law, and you have a lot of
articles in the larger editions. If you pick an article at
random, chances are that you will, most probably, pick one with
few editors.

Best,

Felipe.

> Alain
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:wiki-
> > [hidden email]] On Behalf Of
> Felipe Ortega
> > Sent: November 13, 2008 5:33 PM
> > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular
> contributor"
> >
> > You have a very similar effect in larger Wikipedias.
> In those ones,
> > there is no very active, "single bus"-like
> contributor, but a core of
> > very active users concentrating about 85% of the total
> number of edits
> > per month.
> >
> > It seems that in these languages, though, there is a
> generational relay
> > in which new active users jump into the core to
> substitute those who
> > eventually give up, for any reason. So, the
> concentration becomes
> > stable after a couple of years (aprox.) and the
> encyclopedia is able to
> > continue growing.
> >
> > Best.
> >
> > F.
> >
> >
> > --- El jue, 23/10/08, Gerard Meijssen
> <[hidden email]>
> > escribió:
> >
> > > De: Gerard Meijssen
> <[hidden email]>
> > > Asunto: Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular
> contributor"
> > > Para: "Research into Wikimedia content and
> communities"
> > > <[hidden email]>
> > > Fecha: jueves, 23 octubre, 2008 10:27
> > > Hoi,
> > > I missed that this was the research mailing
> list.. my fault.
> > > Consequently my answer was not appropriate. With
> this in mind, it is
> > > interesting to learn how the spread is in
> particularly the smaller
> > > projects. In my opinion there must be a certain
> amount of productive
> > > people in order to get to a community that does
> not have one person
> > > who is the "bus factor".
> > >
> > > Having someone who drives the bus is really
> important. I wonder how
> > > you can point this person out. I think that
> someone who is just
> > > editing is important but it is not all that
> builds a community.
> > > Thanks,
> > >       GerardM
> > >
> > > On the Volapuk wikipedia Smeira was really
> important. When he left, I
> > > understand that activity collapsed.
> > >
> > > 2008/10/22 phoebe ayers
> <[hidden email]>
> > >
> > > > 2008/10/21 Gerard Meijssen
> > > <[hidden email]>
> > > >
> > > >> Hoi,
> > > >> When you divide people up in groups,
> when you
> > > single out the ones "most
> > > >> valuable", you in effect divide the
> > > community. Whatever you base your
> > > >> metrics on, there will be sound
> arguments to deny
> > > the point of view. When it
> > > >> is about the number of edits, it is
> clear to the
> > > pure encyclopedistas that
> > > >> most of the policy wonks have not
> supported what
> > > is the "real" aim of the
> > > >> project.
> > > >>
> > > >> When you label groups of people, you
> divide them
> > > and it is exactly the
> > > >> egalitarian aspect that makes the
> community
> > > thrive.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But this isn't about labeling people for
> the rest
> > > of time and saying that
> > > > this is how they are defined *on Wikipedia*
> --
> > > it's about saying how do you
> > > > study people who regularly contribute to
> Wikipedia,
> > > and as a part of that
> > > > how do you define the group that you are
> studying,
> > > which is an important
> > > > question for any research study.
> > > >
> > > > Given that it's impossible to study
> every
> > > contributor to the project in
> > > > every study, and since many researchers are
> interested
> > > in why people who
> > > > spend a lot of time or effort working on
> Wikipedia do
> > > so (and what exactly
> > > > it is they do), this is a very relevant
> question for
> > > this list.
> > > >
> > > > --phoebe
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> _______________________________________________
> > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > > >
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


     

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Regular contributor"

Reid Priedhorsky-2
In reply to this post by Platonides
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Regular contributor"

alain_desilets
In reply to this post by Platonides
Thx. That's not the study I had seen (it was a more formal scientific
paper), but it has similar conclusions.

Does anyone know of a more formal scientific paper (not that it matters
to me, but some of my colleagues put more trust in that sort of
publications than in blog posts).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:wiki-
> [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Platonides
> Sent: November 15, 2008 10:36 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
12