Comments on: PART 3: Population Shifts in Wikipedia http://blogs.parc.com/blog/2009/09/part-3-population-shifts-in-wikipedia/ perspectives, trends, discussions Sun, 20 Nov 2011 06:03:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: A modified proposed model of Wikipedia growth (part four) - PARC blog http://blogs.parc.com/blog/2009/09/part-3-population-shifts-in-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-1166 A modified proposed model of Wikipedia growth (part four) - PARC blog Thu, 28 Jan 2010 23:09:39 +0000 [...] mentioned in our first post on the slowing growth rate of Wikipedia [see also our second and third posts on the topic] it appears that Wikipedia article growth peaked around 2007. It appears that [...] [...] mentioned in our first post on the slowing growth rate of Wikipedia [see also our second and third posts on the topic] it appears that Wikipedia article growth peaked around 2007. It appears that [...]

]]> By: Ed H. Chi http://blogs.parc.com/blog/2009/09/part-3-population-shifts-in-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-924 Ed H. Chi Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:32:37 +0000 Jim, Based on the last plot above, you see that as a proportion of the total active editors, the one-time editors have not grown much at all. They remain around just slightly more than 50% of the total active editor population over time. This suggests that there isn't a growth of their power or influence. In our prior posts, for example, the <a href="http://blogs.parc.com/blog/2009/08/the-slowing-growth-of-wikipedia-part-two-resistance-from-dominant-editors/" rel="nofollow">2nd figure of part two</a>, it's clear the one-time editors account for less than 10% of the edits, even though there has been a slight growth over time. Given this evidence, I don't think there is evidence of populist crowd bias... Jim,

Based on the last plot above, you see that as a proportion of the total active editors, the one-time editors have not grown much at all. They remain around just slightly more than 50% of the total active editor population over time. This suggests that there isn’t a growth of their power or influence.

In our prior posts, for example, the 2nd figure of part two, it’s clear the one-time editors account for less than 10% of the edits, even though there has been a slight growth over time.

Given this evidence, I don’t think there is evidence of populist crowd bias…

]]> By: Jim M http://blogs.parc.com/blog/2009/09/part-3-population-shifts-in-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-909 Jim M Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:38:55 +0000 Couldn't it be argued that the increase in one-time editors could be evidence of populist crowd bias? It seems to be that if many editors are of the same mindset (especially when they're wrong), then Wikipedia allows the populist perspective to rise to the top and quiets the fewer -- de-incenting editors who may be correct in their assertions. Couldn’t it be argued that the increase in one-time editors could be evidence of populist crowd bias? It seems to be that if many editors are of the same mindset (especially when they’re wrong), then Wikipedia allows the populist perspective to rise to the top and quiets the fewer — de-incenting editors who may be correct in their assertions.

]]>