Slashdot Mirror
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.
Well, maybe both Mr. Swartz and Mr. Wales are correct.
:P]. Wikipedia is trying hard for quality, hence the importance of copy editors - those quick edit users who do a lot of banging articles into shape. They do an important job. These are the general-purpose-but-shallow editors.
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.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security - Ben Franklin
The number of edits you make means nothing because an edit can mean writing an entirely new article or a very small change (some articles, such as "peerage", have hundreds, if not thousands, of such edits).
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.
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.
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.
And this is a problem, how?
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.
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.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
Please. An encyclopedia is a form and genre, not a classification of quality. Your post is as silly as claiming "The Phantom Menace" was not a real movie because it sucked so much.
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.
Enquiring minds want to know!