On 4 January 2013 08:18, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[email protected]> wrote:
> Erik Moeller, 04/01/2013 08:02: > > I'm wondering whether the key findings in Halfaker's recent "rise and >> decline" paper resonate with you: >> http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~**halfak/publications/The_Rise_** >> and_Decline/<http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/> >> >> Existing data like the above supports strongly the notion that >> well-intentioned, good faith contributors are much more heavily >> discouraged in 2012 than they were in 2004 or 2005, but this can be >> explained in significant part with the influx of bad faith >> contributors that have necessitated increasingly heavy handed ways to >> control against bad edits (Huggle, Twinkle, AbuseFilter, etc.) -- >> which catch good faith editors in the crossfire -- as well as >> increasing expectations of what constitutes an acceptable quality edit >> / page creation. >> > > The paper does contain good news though: > ---- > To explore Hypothesis: Norm formalization & calcification, we first looked > for changes in the rate > of new policy creation following the introduction of a structured proposal > process in 2005. > Figure 8 shows that growth of policies and guidelines began to slow in > 2006, just as Forte > (2009) reports. The results from our analysis of new policy/guideline > proposals show that the > number of new policy proposals accepted via this process peaked in 2005 at > 27 out of 217 (12% > acceptance). 2006 saw an even higher number of proposed policies, but > lower acceptance > with 24 out of 348 proposals accepted (7% acceptance). From 2007 forward, > the rate at which > policies are proposed decreases monotonically down to a mere 16 in 2011 > while the acceptance > rate stays steady at about 7.5%. > ---- > In other words, it would seem that en.wiki, contrary to popular belief, > has developed a good immune system against bureaucracy norms expansion. :-) > > The paper is actually of little use in this part IMHO, because: > 1) we already know that users who joined in 2005/2006 are still > disproportionately active in most community processes like deletion > discussions and so on, > 2) everybody knows that to influence how the wiki is run it's more > effective to change a single word in an important policy than to establish > ten new policies. > > As for (1), I doubt the Wikipedia thought police is keeping newcomers out > of discussions, but one can make them look so hard that newbies won't > participate. However, it.wiki recently switched from the established > vote-system for deletion to a discussion system as en.wiki's, and a year of > data for the "new" system seems to prove that it increased the words spent > and drove away old/unexperienced editors (with 3+ years or 51-5000 edits), > while newcomers resisted, presumably to defend their own articles. > https://toolserver.org/~**mauro742/liste/pdc_stats.csv<https://toolserver.org/~mauro742/liste/pdc_stats.csv> > <https://it.wikipedia.org/**wiki/Wikipedia:Elenchi_** > generati_offline/Richieste/**Archivio/2011#Lavoro_per_le_**PdC<https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Elenchi_generati_offline/Richieste/Archivio/2011#Lavoro_per_le_PdC> > > > > Nemo > > Well, I'd argue "we knew" is not the same as "we can prove"* ;*p. I "know" lots of things - that's distinct from being able to prove them to academia. In my mind, anything which academically substantiates an internally-held assumption is A Good Thing: maybe not directly for us, but indirectly, in the sense that it communicates to intelligent people who get quantitative data the need to help out and work with us. > > ______________________________**_________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [email protected].**org <[email protected]> > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l> > -- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
