And here is where many of the flaws of the University of Minnesota study were exposed:
http://chance.dartmouth.edu/chancewiki/index.php/Chance_News_31#The_Unbreakable_Wikipedia.3F Their methodology of tracking the persistence of words was questionable, to say the least. And here was my favorite part: *"We exclude anonymous editors from some analyses, because IPs are not stable: multiple edits by the same human might be recorded under different IPs, and multiple humans can share an IP.*" So, in a study evaluating the "damaged views" within 34 trillion edits, they excluded the 9 trillion edits by IP addresses? If you're not laughing right now, then you must be new to Wikipedia. Greg _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
