Research on Wikipedia authorship

By Howard Rheingold, published at 10 May 2007 - 8:12pm, last updated 11 years 13 weeks ago.

(Via boingboing)

Aaron Swartz heard Jimmy Wales speak at our Stanford class on Literacy of Cooperation (here's the video) and wondered about his claims that more than half the edits were done by fewer than one percent of the contributors. Swartz rented some computer cluster time, downloaded a sample of the 60 billion Wikipedia edits, and analyzed the results:

When you put it all together, the story become clear: an outsider makes one edit to add a chunk of information, then insiders make several edits tweaking and reformatting it. In addition, insiders rack up thousands of edits doing things like changing the name of a category across the entire site -- the kind of thing only insiders deeply care about. As a result, insiders account for the vast majority of the edits. But it's the outsiders who provide nearly all of the content.

And when you think about it, this makes perfect sense. Writing an encyclopedia is hard. To do anywhere near a decent job, you have to know a great deal of information about an incredibly wide variety of subjects. Writing so much text is difficult, but doing all the background research seems impossible.

On the other hand, everyone has a bunch of obscure things that, for one reason or another, they've come to know well. So they share them, clicking the edit link and adding a paragraph or two to Wikipedia. At the same time, a small number of people have become particularly involved in Wikipedia itself, learning its policies and special syntax, and spending their time tweaking the contributions of everybody else.