Slashdot Mirror


Meet the Man Behind a Third of What's On Wikipedia (cbsnews.com)

Thelasko shares a report from CBS News: Steven Pruitt has made nearly 3 million edits on Wikipedia and written 35,000 original articles. It's earned him not only accolades but almost legendary status on the internet. The online encyclopedia now boasts more than 5.7 million articles in English and millions more translated into other languages -- all written by online volunteers. Pruitt was named one of the most influential people on the internet by Time magazine in part because one-third of all English language articles on Wikipedia have been edited by Steven. An incredible feat, ignited by a fascination with his own history.

How much money does he make from his work? None. "The idea of making it all free fascinates me. My mother grew up in the Soviet Union ... So I'm very conscious of what, what it can mean to make knowledge free, to make information free," he said. Pulling from books, academic journals and other sources, he spends more than three hours a day researching, editing and writing. Even his day job is research, working in records and information at U.S. Customs and Border Protection. He joked that his colleagues probably think he's nuts. To put in to perspective what it took for Pruitt to become the top editor, he's been dedicating his free time to the site for 13 years. The second-place editor is roughly 900,000 edits behind him, so his first place status seems safe, for now.

16 of 189 comments (clear)

  1. They will revert and block him eventually by xack · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I used to be in the top 300 editors before I was hounded out by deletion fascists. They would all use their delete voting sockpuppets on AFD and it didn’t matter how many sources you provided if ‘they’ didn’t like it would go. Wikipedia uses its Google ranking to influence the web and if it wants you to be an unperson it will. I hope this guy gets a job at Britannica or World Book since he is wasting his talent at Wikipedia.

    1. Re:They will revert and block him eventually by gibbsjoh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which country puts religion on passports? Maybe Iran? Probably not...

      I suspect you've had your edits pulled because you're a racist fuckwit, not because of "the evul libruls."

      --
      -- "...I'm a bad guy because I, well, I sing some rock-and-roll songs." M. Manson
    2. Re:They will revert and block him eventually by aevan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Pakistan does/did. Was news back in early '00s.
      India doesn't have the information ON the passport but it is/was required in the forms when getting them.

    3. Re:They will revert and block him eventually by DRJlaw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Which country puts religion on passports? Maybe Iran? Probably not...

      I suspect you've had your edits pulled because you're a racist fuckwit, not because of "the evul libruls."

      Pakistan does/did. Was news back in early '00s.
      India doesn't have the information ON the passport but it is/was required in the forms when getting them.

      Good to know, I know some ME nations ask for it on forms too, Israel has it on some ID systems. But I'd wager the vast majority of nations don't...

      An admission that you already knew that various countries put religious affiliation on IDs, then moving the goalposts after someone backs up the claim that some countries print religion on passports (e.g., https://blogs.tribune.com.pk/s...).

      The AC may be a fuckwit, but you're hardly better.

    4. Re:They will revert and block him eventually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Whinging bastard.

      They didn't have an article on Donna Strickland because she wasn't notable UNTIL SHE WON THE PRIZE. She was the 2013 president of the Optical Society, whoop-de-do. Her predecessor, Mark Heinz, doesn't have an article either. It's not about men-vs-women, stop stirring shit up.

      Someone added her article in 2014 but fucked up because they just copy-pasted someone else's article about her, so it was immediately deleted for copyright violation. They couldn't be bothered to try again and write even one original sentence about her.

      They didn't have Bowsette or Instagram egg articles either "until the media pointed it out", i.e. THEY BECAME NOTABLE TOPICS.

      They don't censor schools, there's just fuck-all to say about PRIMARY/ELEMENTARY schools because there are millions of them, and very few of them have anything distinguishing about them. Almost every SECONDARY/HIGH school, and university/college/polytechnic has a Wikipedia article, and they don't get deleted unless they don't exist.

      They delete WANNABE cryptocurrency articles because they're scams hoping to get famous quick and find suckers to invest in them. They want to hijack Wikipedia's influence, trust and SEO power for their private gain. The rule is simple - first become notable WITHOUT Wikipedia's help. Then, ONCE you're notable, you can have a Wikipedia article.

      You sound like a butthurt loser with an overly high estimation of your own importance. I also have thousands of edits, and over the years I've seen Wikipedia evolve and get better at reining in the deletionists' whims, while also putting in the necessary deletions and bans to stop the place becoming nothing but spam.

  2. Skeptical of the quality of his contributions by Solandri · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wikipedia has been around for 18 years. 18 years / 3 million edits = 3 min 9 sec between edits. If you figure he has an 40 hour/week job (since Wikipedia doesn't pay him) and sleeps / showers / eats 8 hours a day, that works out to 83 seconds between edits if he did nothing but edit Wikipedia during his free time for 18 years.

    1. Re:Skeptical of the quality of his contributions by ranton · · Score: 5, Informative

      You could just look at his edit history if you want to see what those 3 million edits consist of. It appears that many of the edits are very small, and so far today he mostly added and edited categories on a few dozen articles. For instance he edited four soccer game articles and changed the category from "August 19xx sports events" to "August 19xx sports event in Europe". That consisted of 6 edits in 6 articles within 2 minutes. Another half dozen edits were editing dashes on various articles he had previously edited using a script (changing "1911-12" to "1911–12").

      I have only looked at 20 of his edits which mostly took place in a 10 minute period, but it at least shows how his total edit count can get so high after only 13 years. He made 15 edits in a 6 minute period earlier this morning.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  3. Jack of All Trades - Master of None by nukenerd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It worries me that he must be writing articles and making edits mainly just on the basis of looking stuff up. He cannot have a very deep knowledge of most of what he is doing.

    An advantage of Wikipedia should be that every article can be written/edited by someone well versed with the subject. I have done edits and articles in three or four areas I know well, with the assistance of refererences too, but I think that is about the limit of what anyone can be expert enough to do reliable edits.

    1. Re:Jack of All Trades - Master of None by monkeyxpress · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's possible, but on the other hand someone who is prepared to search out hard references is pretty valuable. There are plenty of subject experts who will type out the information they know, or amend an incorrect point, but can't really be bothered to go and find a proper reference for their edits. Having someone who will go through and do that helps make the system more robust.

      I am very wary of what you are saying though. I contribute on stack exchange on engineering questions relevant to my expertise, and I've found it is really common for the SE god contributors to turn up at an extremely specialist question, bash out an waffly answer with errors, get up voted by their buddies, and before you know it the answer is accepted. Meanwhile I might write out a detailed answer and it gets buried in the system as the question is to obscure to get much further attention. It has made me very suspicous of many of the answers on that site. I think that either way it is healthly to approach these sources as starting points, and not become too dogmatic about something based on a crowd sourced article.

  4. Man behind 80% of Slashdot by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Funny
    Wondering when the MSM will get around to covering one Mr A Coward, responsible for 80% of the postings in Slashdot.

    Curiously, he is behind 80% of the postings and 80% of his postings are about his behind.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  5. Universal income FTW by bazorg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Imagine all (or a lot of) the people... earning enough money to cover their needs and then spending time advancing free projects. A lot of rubbish would be produced, but occasionally we'd get something as good as Wikipedia.

  6. Re:If you're going to be eccentric by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    By now, all of us in here should be aware that autism is a requirement for certain jobs. And it always was. How is this guy any different from the monks who spent their medieval lives illuminating manuscripts?

  7. all translated ? by krouic · · Score: 4, Informative

    "The online encyclopedia now boasts more than 5.7 million articles in English and millions more translated into other languages"
    Sorry to break your english-centric point of view, but a good part of the non English articles of Wikipedia are not just translations of existing English articles, but original articles directly written in "foreign" languages.

  8. 3 million edits in 13 years is about 3 per minute. by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think these can be "well researched".

    3 million / 13 = 230,000 per year.

    assume he edits 300 days per year

    769 per day

    assume he works 4 hours per day after his day-job on this

    769/4 = 192 per hour

    that's 3.2 per minute.

    When does he read the books he uses?

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  9. Re: If you're going to be eccentric by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wikipedia's a joke, but they must be desperate for publicity. Donations are falling because their admin corps are a bunch of narcissistic psychos

    Wikipedia is flush with cash, don't be fooled. Their donation drives may make it sound like they're a modern day PBS always struggling to stay alive; the truth is, they've got the funds to last them for decades already. Their goal with the donation drives though is to reach a high enough money flow that they can survive on interest on their current wealth and weather any financial down-turns etc. Essentially they want to become financially independent and be able to last forever as a free standing institution, eventually never having to ask for money again.

    That's the goal at least. They're not going to collapse any time soon.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  10. Re:3 million edits in 13 years is about 3 per minu by ranton · · Score: 4, Informative

    Most of his edits are very minor, like updating "1911-12" to "1911–12" (notice the difference?). He made 16 edits in a 2 minute period earlier this morning mostly with a script updating dashes and changing article categories from "Sports Events" to "Sports Events in Europe".

    I have no idea how impactful his bigger edits are, and TFA and other articles written recently have shown pages he did considerable work on, but I would assume the vast majority (99%+ possibly) are very minor edits. Granted even minor changes can be helpful; perhaps it will be easier to search for those soccer games now that they are labelled as occurring in Europe (I doubt it, but I don't know for sure).

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke