Comments on: 2% Wikipediaholics Account for 73.4% of All Wikipedia Edits

By: liphttam1

liphttam1 — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:05:53 +0000

I eddeted wiki once. They didn't take it off like they do to people who mess up the site. Yay! Alot of my freinds write on wiki, but they just change words and the wikipedia people get angry at them. I wrote about the band state radio. So I can easily belive the numbers up there.

By: pwb

pwb — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:11:23 +0000

Wales is way off. Read the Aaron Swartz article referenced. While most of the *edits* are made by a small number of lame-o's, a much broader number of people have contributed actual content.

People have bought in way too much to the 80/20 rule.

By: fwhigh

fwhigh — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:04:11 +0000

Shear number of edits isn't the most enlightening statistic. I'm willing to bet that the most active majority is editing articles for style and not content. For example, these are probably the guys tagging "citation needed".

There are editors and there are experts. These are not the same people. And quantity of edits is not quality of edits.

By: Brent

Brent — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 07:21:32 +0000

And 90% of my edits are overturned despite being mere spelling mistakes. If I see "teh," or "annyware," or the like, I tend to correct them. It is like picking up a bit of litter on the street and putting it in the bin – simply being a conscientious denizen of the community. But my corrections are almost always reverted!

By: open

open — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 04:43:21 +0000

Everybody needs to think carefully about the concentration of authors. This means controlled information and stinks of manipulation.
It is a good thing to have many opinions. The truth can be easily suppressed by this type of operation. This is just another example of globalization using marxistic methods to control societal thought.
The same can be said with webMD.

wake up the sheeple!

By: Nathan Miller

Nathan Miller — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 00:13:52 +0000

It's like architecture! I once read that 2% of architects sign off on 90% of the buildings built in America. [i.e. cookie cutter houses, etc.]

By: Justin

Justin — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:30:28 +0000

I think it is important to note for those who may have missed it or skimmed the article. The majority of "content" provided is by outsiders and not that 2%. This fact is rather comforting when trying to look at wikipedia as an educational tool. It's nice to know that experts in their particular subject are actually providing the bulk of the content in articles.

In one of my history classes we had to create a Wikipedia article and boy was it a process when you are new. I can see why these thousand or so people make so many edits. It's difficult to get it exactly in the right format.

By: just a guy

just a guy — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:26:50 +0000

Darn that wikipediahol! its just as bad as choclahol or shopahol.

By: Paulina

Paulina — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 15:53:20 +0000

interesting, but not that surprising, i suppose. it's a similar situation with blogging - how many people read and how many people maintain their blogs active and interesting.

i just wonder if the percentage also relates to the involvement of those who translate the articles and wikipedia itself into languages other than english...

By: Christophe

Christophe — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 12:25:03 +0000

Very interesting.

And I thought that wikipedia was a place for corporate hype...