Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Infrequent Anonymous Cowards Reliable on Wikipedia

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the a-visit-from-the-correction-fairy dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "Researchers at Dartmouth University have recently discovered that infrequent anonymous contributors, so called "Good Samaritans," are as reliable as registered users who update constantly and have a reputation to maintain. A graph from page 31 of the group's original paper (pdf file) shows that the quality of contributions of anonymous users goes down as the number of edits increases while quality goes up with the number of edits for registered users."

5 of 264 comments (clear)

  1. Or... by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look at it another way... registered users who are "experts" are no better than the riff-raff.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  2. well duh by ILuvRamen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is to be expected. A lot of people read wikipedia to look up stuff and learn and all that. They never really wanted to edit it though cuz they're lazu. And then when they look up a topic near and dear to their heart like a specific video game or show and find something incorrect or totally lacking and just can't bear to not do something about it. But that's as far as the motivation takes them. I'd assume the majority of editors are like that. Who has like hours and hours to write really good articles all the time?

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    1. Re:well duh by kebes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who has like hours and hours to write really good articles all the time?
      The nuts. The fanatics. The giving-geeks-a-bad-name mom's-basement-dwelling sociopaths
      With all due respect, that is a rather narrow-minded view of the people who spend significant time contributing to Wikipedia. Do you similarly think of people who volunteer their time at soup kitchens as "Nuts. Fanatics. The giving-hard-working-people-a-bad-name social rejects." Or perhaps you think that open-source software coders are "Nuts. Fanatics. The giving-coders-a-bad-name time-wasters."

      Luckily, not everyone views volunteering as a waste of time, or indicative of fanaticism. Many people contribute to Wikipedia because they value information and education. They enjoy challenging their mind. This is their hobby (instead of Sudoku and crossword puzzles), or perhaps even their passion. This is their way of contributing to a greater good.

      We don't want to edit it because we are *adults* with lives and jobs and families and deadlines who want our encyclopedias to be encyclopedias and not some kind of bring-your-own-violin pick-up jazz concert.
      You are more than welcome to ignore the free spread of information and impromptu musical gatherings, and focus on all the important things in your adult life. However it is rather unfortunate that you cannot see the value in what other communities achieve when they willingly devote time from their busy schedules to a communal project.
  3. Re:Not news by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think that this is really all that surprising, people that just do one or two edits aren't typically doing it because the have an investment, they are generally doing it because they found an error.

    Some presumably do deface the pages, but I don't find it terribly surprising that somebody that primarily uses wikipedia would be more reliable than somebody that spends most of their time building a reputation. There's just so much more incentive to fix it if you are using it. That isn't to say that named contributers are inherently bad.

  4. Re:Of course... by Carthag · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1. Look at the edit summary 2. Find the name of the bot that reverted you & click it 3. Find the user who runs the but and go to his page 4. Talk with him. You're way too angry for way too little reason. I'd understand if you got angrty if someone shot your or something, but getting angry over a minor misunderstanding is ... a bit much.