Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Edits Around the World
billlava writes "Wikipedia continues on its inexorable march toward becoming the repository for the world's knowledge — to the tune of four and a half edits a second. Just who is doing all these edits? And where do they live? Erik Zachte compiled data from a day in May 2011 into an interesting set of animations and maps to show update activity as it occurred during the day."
How can it be the repository for the world's knowledge when they are constantly deleting things?
How many of those edits are reverting vandalism?
Furthermore, how many of those edits are overwriting legitimate, accurate content that the all-knowing editors deem to be "unsuitable" for article inclusion?
I could imagine that these numbers are quite padded by the bureaucracy and drama that engulfs the Wikiworld.
The Chinese edits were interesting. Mostly from Taiwan ....
The English edits look pretty much balanced between the English speaking countries - I don't see as a huge difference between the US, UK and Australia as I do between China and Taiwan.
I like how the second map has a significant number of edits coming from the geographical coordinates zero degrees north/south by zero degrees east/west. I guess geolocation by IP doesn't work perfectly. Or there's a very busy boat somewhere.
did they leave them out just to annoy them?
need a free COBOL editor for Windows?
The English map shows a significant amount coming from the area of Nunalla, CA, on the western shore of Hudson Bay. But there's nothing there except two historic buildings from the Hudson Bay Company. So either the geolocation algorithm is off, or maybe it's the entrance to a secret underground organization such as Aperture Science.
I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
Needless to say, there are many Wikipedias dedicated to each language. Think how much richer each entry would be if all that time and energy was concentrated into the one or maybe two languages. That always makes me sad.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Map seems to show technologically advanced nations around major population centers make the most wikipedia edits. Surprised? After awhile they all look the same.
Compared to other developed nations Canada barely registers any edits at all. Whats going on up there?
Hmm... I'd be interested in where most of the edits to conservapedia originate from, organized by length of edits and blue or red district. My hypothesis would be that most of the short, trollish edits were from blue states.
While I'd like to think ALL of it is trolling, I don't have that much faith in humanity.
I often read simple Wikipedia myself, sometimes brevity and reduced jargon make a challenging topic easier to digest. Sometimes not :).
Conservapedia is somewhat schizophrenic to read. Setting up an article with a "Conservative" bias, has shown that Conservatives have a more diverse rainbow of opinion than any other political group. Not that they would be happy to be described with those terms.
Clearly not an objective statement.
There may be a lot of articles on Wikipedia. However, the average quality is not high, and it certainly must never ever be treated as a repository of knowledge. It is nothing of the kind.
Here's what everyone needs to do... do what you rarely ever do -- go to any wikipedia page on a subject in which you are expert or very knowledgeable. In all likelihood, you will then realize that this page is riddled with errors, bad writing, glaring omissions, bias and probably other things too.
Why then should anyone EVER trust ANY page on wikipedia? If the pages on subjects you know about are flawed, what makes you think the pages on subjects you don't know about aren't.
Wikipedia should, could, and would be a great resource if it were not run by some of the most ignorant, corrupt, power-hungry assholes on the planet. All those scum are doing is keeping anyone with real knowledge away form the site.
It's a shame, but until Wales and his collaborators are removed from power, there's no hope for wikipedia whatsoever.
The entirety of conservapedia is trollish.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
I would expect that is because there are more non-native English speakers in the South - such as Mexican expats.
Greetings Professor Falken
A strange game.
The only winning move is
not to play.
The summary is misleading - only the second of the screenshots in the article claims to be from May; the first is dated 14th February which, it could easily be argued is not a "random" or typical day in the Western world.
I'd be far more interested to see a screenshot of deletions rather than edits, if only to find out exactly who is committing the annoying, unnecessary and downright malicious deletions of interesting scientific articles but leaving the FUD about D-list celebrities.
Funny, the "suitability" guidelines are quite simple
Not to me they aren't. There is no bright line rule for what makes a "reliable" source. When I asked on (I think it was) Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources for some help on clarifying the rule for how a source is deemed to have established a reputation for fact-checking, I got accused of trolling.
a unified language that we can all use universally ... English perhaps?
1.6 billion Chinese beg to differ
Chinese is not a language but a group of related languages using mostly the same logograms and syntax. Which Chinese language are you talking about? Mandarin? Cantonese? Taiwanese? If there were more speakers of Mandarin alone throughout the industrialized world than speakers of English, I might be more inclined to learn Mandarin.
A new language without redundant rules
Redundancy helps with error detection and correction.
complicated exceptions to this rules, without idiotic and pointless silent letters, and without words that have the same spelling but have different meaning.
Would you prefer Toki Pona, a language with fewer than 150 words that relies on heavy compounding?