PDA

View Full Version : Who Writes Wikipedia ?



PDK
08/06/2008, 08:56 PM
Vài cái gạch đít từ bài dưới.

khoảng 2,000 mạng viết gần hết cái Wikipedia trong 4 năm. Viết có lẽ lâu hơn, dịch ra có lẽ nhanh hơn. Chắc cần khoảng 1,000 mạng để dịch.

Đại học ngoại ngữ ? Đại học PVĐ ? Giờ học tiếng Anh ... ai chẳng thích ? 4 năm học ĐH ngoại ngữ bộ môn Anh Văn, thay vì học Anh Văn, cứ ngày vô làm 8 tiếng ... dịch tiếng Anh. 4 năm sau ra trường. Tiếng Anh hổng lưu loát hổng ăn tiền. Chẳng những vốn liếng tiếng Anh gia tăng 18 thành công lực mòa kiến thức trên Trời dưới thế ... chéc cũng cỡ CBQ :D. Thiên hạ có 1 bồ chữ, 1,000 thèng tui ... ních hết cái bồ chữ đó. Cái bồ chữ đó là cái bồ chữ thiệt chứ không phải ếch nhìn Trời Trăng :D



:D :D :D
---

... the truth was rather different: Wikipedia was actually written by "a community ... a dedicated group of a few hundred volunteers" where "I know all of them and they all know each other". Really, "it's much like any traditional organization."


"For me this is really important, because I spend a lot of time listening to those four or five hundred and if ... those people were just a bunch of people talking ... maybe I can just safely ignore them when setting policy" and instead worry about "the million people writing a sentence each".

So did the Gang of 500 actually write Wikipedia? Wales decided to run a simple study to find out: he counted who made the most edits to the site. "I expected to find something like an 80-20 rule: 80% of the work being done by 20% of the users, just because that seems to come up a lot. But it's actually much, much tighter than that: it turns out over 50% of all the edits are done by just .7% of the users ... 524 people. ... And in fact the most active 2%, which is 1400 people, have done 73.4% of all the edits." The remaining 25% of edits, he said, were from "people who [are] contributing ... a minor change of a fact or a minor spelling fix ... or something like that."



---
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia

Who Writes Wikipedia?

I first met Jimbo Wales, the face of Wikipedia, when he came to speak at Stanford. Wales told us about Wikipedia's history, technology, and culture, but one thing he said stands out. "The idea that a lot of people have of Wikipedia," he noted, "is that it's some emergent phenomenon -- the wisdom of mobs, swarm intelligence, that sort of thing -- thousands and thousands of individual users each adding a little bit of content and out of this emerges a coherent body of work."† But, he insisted, the truth was rather different: Wikipedia was actually written by "a community ... a dedicated group of a few hundred volunteers" where "I know all of them and they all know each other". Really, "it's much like any traditional organization."

The difference, of course, is crucial. Not just for the public, who wants to know how a grand thing like Wikipedia actually gets written, but also for Wales, who wants to know how to run the site. "For me this is really important, because I spend a lot of time listening to those four or five hundred and if ... those people were just a bunch of people talking ... maybe I can just safely ignore them when setting policy" and instead worry about "the million people writing a sentence each".

So did the Gang of 500 actually write Wikipedia? Wales decided to run a simple study to find out: he counted who made the most edits to the site. "I expected to find something like an 80-20 rule: 80% of the work being done by 20% of the users, just because that seems to come up a lot. But it's actually much, much tighter than that: it turns out over 50% of all the edits are done by just .7% of the users ... 524 people. ... And in fact the most active 2%, which is 1400 people, have done 73.4% of all the edits." The remaining 25% of edits, he said, were from "people who [are] contributing ... a minor change of a fact or a minor spelling fix ... or something like that."

Stanford wasn't the only place he's made such a claim; it's part of the standard talk he gives all over the world. "This is the group of around a thousand people who really matter", he told us at Stanford. "There is this tight community that is actually doing the bulk of all the editing", he explained at the Oxford Internet Institute. "It's a group of around a thousand to two thousand people," he informed the crowd at GEL 2005. These are just the three talks I watched, but Wales has given hundreds more like them.

At Stanford the students were skeptical. Wales was just counting the number of edits -- the number of times a user changed something and clicked save. Wouldn't things be different if he counted the amount of text each user contributed? Wales said he planned to do that in "the next revision", but was sure "my results are going to be even stronger", because he'd no longer be counting vandalism and other changes that later got removed.

Wales presents these claims as comforting. Don't worry, he tells the world, Wikipedia isn't as shocking as you think. In fact, it's just like any other project: a small group of colleagues working together toward a common goal. But if you think about it, Wales's view of things is actually much more shocking: around a thousand people wrote the world's largest encyclopedia in four years for free? Could this really be true?

Curious and skeptical, I decided to investigate. I picked an article at random ("Alan Alda") to see how it was written. Today the Alan Alda page is a pretty standard Wikipedia page: it has a couple photos, several pages of facts and background, and a handful of links. But when it was first created, it was just two sentences: "Alan Alda is a male actor most famous for his role of Hawkeye Pierce in the television series MASH. Or recent work, he plays sensitive male characters in drama movies." How did it get from there to here?

Edit by edit, I watched the page evolve. The changes I saw largely fell into three groups. A tiny handful -- probably around 5 out of nearly 400 -- were "vandalism": confused or malicious people adding things that simply didn't fit, followed by someone undoing their change. The vast majority, by far, were small changes: people fixing typos, formatting, links, categories, and so on, making the article a little nicer but not adding much in the way of substance. Finally, a much smaller amount were genuine additions: a couple sentences or even paragraphs of new information added to the page.

Wales seems to think that the vast majority of users are just doing the first two (vandalizing or contributing small fixes) while the core group of Wikipedians writes the actual bulk of the article. But that's not at all what I found. Almost every time I saw a substantive edit, I found the user who had contributed it was not an active user of the site. They generally had made less than 50 edits (typically around 10), usually on related pages. Most never even bothered to create an account.

To investigate more formally, I purchased some time on a computer cluster and downloaded a copy of the Wikipedia archives. I wrote a little program to go through each edit and count how much of it remained in the latest version.† Instead of counting edits, as Wales did, I counted the number of letters a user actually contributed to the present article.

If you just count edits, it appears the biggest contributors to the Alan Alda article (7 of the top 10) are registered users who (all but 2) have made thousands of edits to the site. Indeed, #4 has made over 7,000 edits while #7 has over 25,000. In other words, if you use Wales's methods, you get Wales's results: most of the content seems to be written by heavy editors.

But when you count letters, the picture dramatically changes: few of the contributors (2 out of the top 10) are even registered and most (6 out of the top 10) have made less than 25 edits to the entire site. In fact, #9 has made exactly one edit -- this one! With the more reasonable metric -- indeed, the one Wales himself said he planned to use in the next revision of his study -- the result completely reverses.

I don't have the resources to run this calculation across all of Wikipedia (there are over 60 million edits!), but I ran it on several more randomly-selected articles and the results were much the same. For example, the largest portion of the Anaconda article was written by a user who only made 2 edits to it (and only 100 on the entire site). By contrast, the largest number of edits were made by a user who appears to have contributed no text to the final article (the edits were all deleting things and moving things around).

When you put it all together, the story become clear: an outsider makes one edit to add a chunk of information, then insiders make several edits tweaking and reformatting it. In addition, insiders rack up thousands of edits doing things like changing the name of a category across the entire site -- the kind of thing only insiders deeply care about. As a result, insiders account for the vast majority of the edits. But it's the outsiders who provide nearly all of the content.

And when you think about it, this makes perfect sense. Writing an encyclopedia is hard. To do anywhere near a decent job, you have to know a great deal of information about an incredibly wide variety of subjects. Writing so much text is difficult, but doing all the background research seems impossible.

On the other hand, everyone has a bunch of obscure things that, for one reason or another, they've come to know well. So they share them, clicking the edit link and adding a paragraph or two to Wikipedia. At the same time, a small number of people have become particularly involved in Wikipedia itself, learning its policies and special syntax, and spending their time tweaking the contributions of everybody else.

Other encyclopedias work similarly, just on a much smaller scale: a large group of people write articles on topics they know well, while a small staff formats them into a single work. This second group is clearly very important -- it's thanks to them encyclopedias have a consistent look and tone -- but it's a severe exaggeration to say that they wrote the encyclopedia. One imagines the people running Britannica worry more about their contributors than their formatters.

And Wikipedia should too. Even if all the formatters quit the project tomorrow, Wikipedia would still be immensely valuable. For the most part, people read Wikipedia because it has the information they need, not because it has a consistent look. It certainly wouldn't be as nice without one, but the people who (like me) care about such things would probably step up to take the place of those who had left. The formatters aid the contributors, not the other way around.

Wales is right about one thing, though. This fact does have enormous policy implications. If Wikipedia is written by occasional contributors, then growing it requires making it easier and more rewarding to contribute occasionally. Instead of trying to squeeze more work out of those who spend their life on Wikipedia, we need to broaden the base of those who contribute just a little bit.

Unfortunately, precisely because such people are only occasional contributors, their opinions aren't heard by the current Wikipedia process. They don't get involved in policy debates, they don't go to meetups, and they don't hang out with Jimbo Wales. And so things that might help them get pushed on the backburner, assuming they're even proposed.

Out of sight is out of mind, so it's a short hop to thinking these invisible people aren't particularly important. Thus Wales's belief that 500 people wrote half an encyclopedia. Thus his assumption that outsiders contribute mostly vandalism and nonsense. And thus the comments you sometimes hear that making it hard to edit the site might be a good thing.

"I'm not a wiki person who happened to go into encyclopedias," Wales told the crowd at Oxford. "I'm an encyclopedia person who happened to use a wiki." So perhaps his belief that Wikipedia was written in the traditional way isn't surprising. Unfortunately, it is dangerous. If Wikipedia continues down this path of focusing on the encyclopedia at the expense of the wiki, it might end up not being much of either.

anmota
08/07/2008, 05:30 AM
Wp/nan/Tsú-hiêh

From Wikimedia Incubator

< Wp (http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp) | nan (http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nan)
Jump to: navigation (http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nan/Ts%C3%BA-hi%C3%AAh#column-one), search (http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nan/Ts%C3%BA-hi%C3%AAh#searchInput)
<!-- start content -->
[edit (http://incubator.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wp/nan/Ts%C3%BA-hi%C3%AAh&action=edit&section=1)] Tsú-hiêh/主䈎

<TABLE width="100%" border=2><TBODY><TR><TD><CENTER><BIG><BIG>Huaⁿ-ngêng kuang-lîm Tiê-chiu-uē kâi peh-khue-chhuâng-tsur páng-púng!</BIG>
</BIG>歡迎光臨潮州話 (http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%BD%AE%E5%B7%9E%E8%A9%B1)個百科全書版本!
<TABLE><TBODY><TR><TD>chham-kháu Tiê-chiu-uē jī-tiáng (http://www.mogher.com/dictionnaire/parcaractere.aspx), Eng-gúr Tiê-chiu-uē sûr-tiáng, chhái-ēng Peng'im (http://www.gaginang.org/content/index.php?p=15) Chhiáⁿ chham-úr phiang-siá kâi phêng-iú, kàu "Thó-lŭng hiêh (http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wp/nan/Ts%C3%BA-hi%C3%AAh)" chìng-kiâⁿ thó-lŭng.
</TD><TD>參考 潮州話字典 (http://www.mogher.com/dictionnaire/parcaractere.aspx),英語-潮州話詞典 (http://www.gaginang.org/content/index.php?p=15) 請參與編寫個朋友,到“討論䈎 (http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wp/nan/Ts%C3%BA-hi%C3%AAh)”進行討論。
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<TABLE><TBODY><TR><TD>Chí-kò sĭ hāiⁿ-nâng chhì-ngiām Tiê-chiu-uē kâi Wikipedia (http://incubator.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wp/nan/Wikipedia&action=edit&redlink=1). Huaⁿ-ngêng lúr ēng Tiê-chiu-uē tsak-chhuk kòng-hiàng. Táng-kàu tù-tsak kâi bûng-chieⁿ ŏi kàu-siàu àu, Tiê-chiu-uē Wikipedia tsŭ-ŏi uâk-tsúng sêng-lîp, chhuâng-pŏu kâi bûng-chieⁿ lăi-iông chiang-ŏi chhiang-kàu chiàⁿ-sek kâi Wikipedia. Tŏ chhì-ngiām-tang kâi chí-kâi Wikipedia, bûng-chieⁿ kâi phiau-tôi pik-su tiêh-ēng [[Wp/nan/Name of article]] kâi iēⁿ-sek. lī-jû, "Tiê-chiu-uē" chí-phiang bûng-chieⁿ kâi phiau-tôi tsŭ-sĭ wp/nan/Tiê-chiu-uē (http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nan/Ti%C3%AA-chiu-u%C4%93). (Tŏ chiang-lâi chiàⁿ-sek kâi Wikipedia lăi-tói kâi phiau-tôi tng-jiâng eng-kai sĭ [[Tiê-chiu-uē]].)</TD><TD>兹块是讓人試驗潮州話個Wikipedia (http://incubator.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wp/nan/Wikipedia&action=edit&redlink=1)。歡迎汝用潮州話作出貢獻。 到著作個文章会够数了,潮州話Wikipe dia就會獲准成立,全部個文章內容將 遷到正式個Wikipedia。在試驗中個兹個W ikipedia,文章個標題必须着用[[Wp/nan/Name of article]] 個樣式。例如,「潮州話」兹篇文章 標題就是Wp/nan/潮州話 (http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nan/Ti%C3%AA-chiu-u%C4%93)。 (在将來正式個Wikipedia内底个標題當 應該是[[潮州話]]。)</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Lúr ŏi-tàⁿ Tiê-chiu-uē a-bŏi? Uáng tiêh lúr-lâi tsò-chêk-ē sie-hŭ!
汝會订潮州話嗎?阮着汝来做一下相 !
Please Vote (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Teochew) for the creation of Teochew Wikipedia.

請為創建潮州話個Wikipedia 投票 (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Teochew)
Chhiáⁿ-ûi chhàng-kiăng Tiê-chiu-uē kâi Wikipedia tâu-phiè (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Teochew)
There are currently 61 (http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Wp/nan) articles.
</CENTER></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

anmota
08/07/2008, 06:45 AM
Hoa Chiểu, Bàu Bông, Bàu Hoa, Bàu Ba.... thành Bà Chiểu...

http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ch%E1%BB%97_th%E1%BB%AD#L.C4.83ng_.C3.94 ng_v.C3.A0_Ba_chi.E1.BB.83u

Anmota

anmota
08/07/2008, 06:53 AM
Người Gia định, Đồng nai thời bấy..đa số ( gố Quảng nam, Quảng ngãi) hay nói ngọng vần ' AU '...thành ' A...'
Bàu Hạt, thành Bà Hạt...
Bà Ba đi chợ mua ra..(u)...,
Nói hở cái miệng thuộc là (u) đấy thôi.
Ai không tin tì ho..ỏa tui!
Anmota

anmota
08/07/2008, 07:19 AM
http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguy%E1%BB%85n_B%C3%A1_Nghi

Tui thương ông nầy lắm. Nhưng tui già rồi...!
Theo mấy cái chỉ dẫn để viết, để dán..chết không kịp ngáp...
Ví dụ:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trang_Ch%C3%ADnh

Ai trẻ và giỏi, nên góp ý cho người ta sửa lại : làm sao cho người đóng góp dễ vào, dễ góp...

Help!
PDK, ĐK, LHK...KaKa...?

PDK
08/07/2008, 09:19 AM
Mấy dòng suy nghĩ ...

Mỗi lần dò tìm thông tin trên cái mạng Báck Khoa Tự Điển Wikipedia là mỗi lần tui lại chán ngán.

Một rừng thông tin, và đặc biệt các thông tin này luôn luôn được cập nhựt và kiểm chứng (ít nhứt là trong tiếng Anh).

Cái chán đầu tiên nhứt là ... tiếng Việt của ta ... quá giàu đẹp ! Giàu và đẹp đến nỗi ... cất mãi trong rương, trong trấp ! Hay dân ta ... quá khiêm tốn ! Khiêm tốn đến nỗi ... sợ thiên hạ nói mình ... khoe khoang ? Cái "tinh thần" ... tốt khoe xấu che ... đang trở thành ... tốt xấu gì cũng cất hết !

Nhưng cái chán trên vẫn chưa bằng ... nỗi đau sâu thẩm hơn. Gần như mọi trang đều được chuyển dịch sang tiếng Tàu (Trung Văn) còn mọi chữ Việt Ngữ dường như bặt tăm ! Chắc có lẽ ... đẹp cỡ ... chim sa cá lặn ... nên hổng dám khoe !

...

Tui cũng nhiều lần ... ngồi rình ... tìm cách ...

Nghĩ hoài hổng ra :D, làm thì ra ... chút chút :D.

...

Xưa bên Tàu có ông Lưu Bị phải ... Tam Khấu Thảo Lư ...

Từ ba lần đến lều cỏ đó nên sau này mới đẻ ra ... Lục Xuất Kỳ Sơn, Thất Cầm Mạnh Hoạch :thumbsup:.

...

Cái màn dịch chơi chơi không công, đâm thọt rùi nó cũng sẽ tàn lụi. Tui nghĩ phải có cách thức gì ... chiến lược hơn. Kiểu cỡ Lưu Bị quỳ trước lều cỏ hay liệng con mua lòng Triệu Tử Vân thì mới được.

Cơm áo không đùa khách ...

Cái vụ viết, dịch này theo tui nghĩ phải được ... reinforce. Có cà phê, phở thì chữ nghĩa ... dồi dào hơn :D. Nền kinh tế thị trường ... noái dzị :D.

Giờ bà con nào tìm cái chủ đề nào trên Wikipedia rùi viết/dịch. Chủ đề sao cho ... đừng quá chuyên đề :sweatingb, xong tui ráng đem rao bán theo kiểu Hàn Mặc Tử

Ai mua Trăng, tui bán Trăng cho ...

...

Chỉ ... vui thui mòa :D. Vui ... có định hướng :innocent:

Bãi héc :D, bỏ tiền ăn phở, uống cà phê ... phẻ hơn :D



:D :D :D

anmota
08/07/2008, 09:32 AM
Khổng biết có ai người Quảng nghĩa mình đã vào đây và 'viết thứ chưa...
Tui thì tui thí mang già :
Uất Trì Cung tắm ngựa... Trình Giảo Kim...thí võ Trường yên...
Có điều công lưc ' bán (half) thành. Nội đọc các cái chỉ dẫn đã lạc đường lạc sá...
Tức mình. Không có kẻ đồng hành trẻ khỏe...
Anmota

PDK
08/07/2008, 06:21 PM
<big><big>Huaⁿ-ngêng kuang-lîm Tiê-chiu-uē kâi peh-khue-chhuâng-tsur páng-púng!


Sáng giờ ... hổng để ý :D. Sao có vụ ... Bách Khuê Tự Điển trong đây hỉ :D :D

Bách Khuê Tự Điển ... tra hoài hổng có ra đâu nghen :D. Tra có ra thì ... coi chừng ... ngoài vùng phủ sóng :D :D



:D :D :D
</big></big>