http://groupblog.workasone.net/archives/00241.html Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:28:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 http://groupblog.workasone.net/archives/00241.html#comment-8151 Reflections on Power, Control and Authority - Week 8 | All The Young (Edu)Punks Sun, 02 Nov 2008 07:19:34 +0000 http://groupblog.workasone.net/archives/2007/11/wikipedia-contribution-mass-or-elite-activity-the-question-answered/#comment-8151 [...] they continue to post? Are they the new posting elite? Is there power from posting? This blog post, seems to think so. So does this article by Jakob Nielsen, who’s been pushing for a useable web since the [...] [...] they continue to post? Are they the new posting elite? Is there power from posting? This blog post, seems to think so. So does this article by Jakob Nielsen, who’s been pushing for a useable web since the [...]

]]> http://groupblog.workasone.net/archives/00241.html#comment-4901 Nihiltres Sun, 11 Nov 2007 02:44:12 +0000 http://groupblog.workasone.net/archives/2007/11/wikipedia-contribution-mass-or-elite-activity-the-question-answered/#comment-4901 OK, posting problem appears to have gone away. (original post) It's interesting, but ultimately, you have to consider why this might be the case, rather than make blind assumptions from the numbers. The Priedhorsky study looked for words and sentences that tended to stay over multiple viewings of the article (they called them "persistent word views" [yes, "word", not "world"] or "PWVs"). This means that "content" in this context could also be cleaning up existing content with better prose, in both grammar and style, rather than actually writing everything by hand. This is because content that is clean tends to stay, while questionable or ungrammatical material is usually revised. Would it be any surprise, then, that those 0.1% of editors, the core group that cleans up Wikipedia content, has the greatest number of persistent combinations of words? The statistics are remarkably misleading in this sense if not read critically. Hope this is enlightening. :) (addendum) Although the results are so unbalanced, I believe that that is the case because the cleanup PWVs cut off the PWVs of the original author - though certainly there is something to be said for the core group of creators. OK, posting problem appears to have gone away.
(original post)
It’s interesting, but ultimately, you have to consider why this might be the case, rather than make blind assumptions from the numbers. The Priedhorsky study looked for words and sentences that tended to stay over multiple viewings of the article (they called them “persistent word views” [yes, "word", not "world"] or “PWVs”). This means that “content” in this context could also be cleaning up existing content with better prose, in both grammar and style, rather than actually writing everything by hand. This is because content that is clean tends to stay, while questionable or ungrammatical material is usually revised. Would it be any surprise, then, that those
0.1% of editors, the core group that cleans up Wikipedia content, has the greatest number of persistent combinations of words? The statistics are remarkably misleading in this sense if not read critically. Hope this is enlightening.
(addendum)
Although the results are so unbalanced, I believe that that is the case because the cleanup PWVs cut off the PWVs of the original author - though certainly there is something to be said for the core group of creators.

]]>