It ssems like the a mouth of vandalism has changed and that this could
be the main reason why the a mouth of reverts has gone up. Previously
there was also a larger a mouth of smaller articles and then any edit is
a valid contribution. Now there is a larger number of bigger articles
and not every e
Hoi,
While I really like the
http://cloudy.martinkozak.net/wikisupport/statistics/?family=wikipedias&project=de&subject=good&scanback=700numbers...
they are sadly woefully incomplete. This may have to do with a
lack of servers but for me the numbers that I am interested in are just not
there. Numbe
> I think that this analysis has point and that we should think about
> consequences. Today WM RS had meeting in Novi Sad and we talked about
> this issue, too: How to attract new contributors to stay at Wikipedia.
>
> [1] -
> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/08/13/1310228/Wikipedia-Approaches
OK,
There might be two (or more? :-) alternative models of that...
usurpation (?is that the right word?):
1. conspiracy of nitwits, which got organised into flock/gang/horde
and don't want anybody else to play with their beloved toy (even to
cross the border of their virtual territory);
2. some
Not a new topic, but I find editing about the same. Still nitwits
guarding pitiful amateur POV productions like dogs, and citing inapropos
policy as though it were holy writ.
Fred
>>From Slashdot article [1]:
>
> "The Guardian reports that a study by Ed H Chi demonstrates that the
> character of
>From Slashdot article [1]:
"The Guardian reports that a study by Ed H Chi demonstrates that the
character of Wikipedia has changed significantly since Wikipedia's
first burst of activity between 2004 and 2007. While the encyclopedia
is still growing overall, the number of articles being added has
