<img src=http://news.google.com/news?imgefp=ZuEauSQjL2QJ&imgurl=www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2007/10/images/anthony.jpg width=65 height=80 alt="" border=1>
Dartmouth researchers confirm the power of altruism in Wikipedia
Dartmouth News, NH -28 minutes ago
The beauty of open-source applications is that they are continually improved and updated by those who use them and care about them. ...
View the article[br]
QUOTE
Dartmouth researchers looked at the online encyclopedia Wikipedia to determine if the anonymous, infrequent contributors, the Good Samaritans, are as reliable as the people who update constantly and have a reputation to maintain.
The answer is, surprisingly, yes. The researchers discovered that Good Samaritans contribute high-quality content, as do the active, registered users. They examined Wikipedia authors and the quality of Wikipedia content as measured by how long and how much of it persisted before being changed or corrected.
The answer is, surprisingly, yes. The researchers discovered that Good Samaritans contribute high-quality content, as do the active, registered users. They examined Wikipedia authors and the quality of Wikipedia content as measured by how long and how much of it persisted before being changed or corrected.
I think we all know how good their research was. How much do they know about Wikipedia?
QUOTE
According to Anthony, Wikipedia now requires that anonymous contributors who make numerous edits must register.
QUOTE(guy @ Wed 17th October 2007, 8:50am) 
QUOTE
Dartmouth researchers looked at the online encyclopedia Wikipedia to determine if the anonymous, infrequent contributors, the Good Samaritans, are as reliable as the people who update constantly and have a reputation to maintain.
The answer is, surprisingly, yes. The researchers discovered that Good Samaritans contribute high-quality content, as do the active, registered users. They examined Wikipedia authors and the quality of Wikipedia content as measured by how long and how much of it persisted before being changed or corrected.
The answer is, surprisingly, yes. The researchers discovered that Good Samaritans contribute high-quality content, as do the active, registered users. They examined Wikipedia authors and the quality of Wikipedia content as measured by how long and how much of it persisted before being changed or corrected.
I think we all know how good their research was. How much do they know about Wikipedia?
QUOTE
According to Anthony, Wikipedia now requires that anonymous contributors who make numerous edits must register.
Wow, classic.
Oh, dear.
From the study's report (not the press release about the study):
So, when they say that edits have a 72% retention rate, that may be after the content has been warred over countless times? More importantly, the study then equates the retention rate of an edit with its quality. They then conclude:
That is, if a tiny edit can be "hidden" in a big, fat article, the less likely anybody is going to find that it's of low-quality or vandalism. That's my interpretation, anyway.
There is some good news, however:
But then they continue with this already-famous misunderstanding:
Well, what do you expect from a study that actually labels "anonymous editors who contribute only once" as "Good Samaritans"? They must be disciples of George Lakoff, the way they framed that premise!
Greg
From the study's report (not the press release about the study):
QUOTE
We recognize that retention rate does not take into account all important features
of content quality in Wikipedia, including, for example, “edit warsâ€, in which two or
more contributors continually change the content of a topic-entry, sometimes merely
using the wiki to return the article to a previous version of the text.
of content quality in Wikipedia, including, for example, “edit warsâ€, in which two or
more contributors continually change the content of a topic-entry, sometimes merely
using the wiki to return the article to a previous version of the text.
So, when they say that edits have a 72% retention rate, that may be after the content has been warred over countless times? More importantly, the study then equates the retention rate of an edit with its quality. They then conclude:
QUOTE
It is important to note that the control variables are also significant in explaining
the quality of contributions. The shorter a contribution is the higher its quality, for both
registered and anonymous users. Quality is also higher when the topic article being edited
is larger, regardless of the type of contributor.
the quality of contributions. The shorter a contribution is the higher its quality, for both
registered and anonymous users. Quality is also higher when the topic article being edited
is larger, regardless of the type of contributor.
That is, if a tiny edit can be "hidden" in a big, fat article, the less likely anybody is going to find that it's of low-quality or vandalism. That's my interpretation, anyway.
There is some good news, however:
QUOTE
The findings of lower quality for anonymous contributors with high participation
indicate a strong but negative interest in the collective good which, if left unchecked,
could destroy the open source good much as other commons can be destroyed by similar
collective action problems.
indicate a strong but negative interest in the collective good which, if left unchecked,
could destroy the open source good much as other commons can be destroyed by similar
collective action problems.
But then they continue with this already-famous misunderstanding:
QUOTE
To deal with the negative impact of this group of contributors
Wikipedia has instituted a policy that requires contributors to register after some number
of anonymous contributions.
Wikipedia has instituted a policy that requires contributors to register after some number
of anonymous contributions.
Well, what do you expect from a study that actually labels "anonymous editors who contribute only once" as "Good Samaritans"? They must be disciples of George Lakoff, the way they framed that premise!
Greg
Open source Wikipedia proves Good Samaritans do exist, Dartmouth says
NetworkWorld.com, MA -43 minutes ago
By Network World Staff, Network World, 10/17/07 Dartmouth researchers say they were surprised to find that Good Samaritans – those people who update the ...
View the article[br]
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.