73.4 Percent of All Wikipedia Edits Are Made By Roughly 1,400 People

73.4 Percent of All Wikipedia Edits Are Made By Roughly 1,400 People

Most college professors discourage students from using Wikipedia as a reliable source of information, and if you’ve ever wondered why, here is the reason:

 

There are millions of people who browse Wikipedia in any given month, but only 2 percent of them (roughly 1,400) are responsible for editing nearly 75 percent of the information on the entire website.

 

In other words, Wikipedia, while editable by anyone, is fueled almost entirely by the knowledge of a small, select group of individuals.

 

Consider them the Illuminati of Wikipedia; they control the flow of information that often finds its way into our college essays, despite our professors’ best attempts to dissuade us from citing it.

 

The source of this startling revelation? The face of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales.

But, [Wales] 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."


[…] 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."

You know what that means: Wikipedia will never be accepted by professors, so get used to going to the—gasp—library and reading—cringe—books.

+ 70 comments

Related Posts

Comments

Anonymous
That statistic was only ever true in the early years of Wikipedia, and even so it's extremely misleading because of the nature of edits made by those with the highest edit counts (formatting, copy-editing, reverting vandalism).

Today, that number is more like about 15-20%, and the types-of-edits caveat still applies.
Posted 12/30/2008 9:26 PMReply
Anonymous
Wikipedia can be useful, if only to direct you to sources of information that are credible to writing a paper. The problem is using Wikipedia more than it can reliably do for you, a danger with any tool. Posted 12/30/2008 11:23 PMReply
Anonymous
As I see it, there is a clear and consistent conspiracy against Wikipedia (more against the principles it put forward)!

Many hidden forces want to see Wikipedia also follow the school of profit oriented monopoly companies who raise fund from advertisement or directly from customers. Because, availability of free information is affecting their business climates.

It is like the behaviour of weird-life-promoters who tried to supply condoms at the venue of World youth meeting organized at Australia.

Whoever coming against my way of life – suppress them, oppress them, pull them, push them, KILL them.
Posted 12/31/2008 05:37 AMReply
Anonymous
73.4 Percent of All Wikipedia Edits Are Made By Roughly 1,400 People...

...in 2006.

There are now 8,594,382 registered users on Wikpedia. The 2% rule applied today would mean that about 172,000 users are responsible for editing nearly 75 percent of the information on the entire website.
Posted 12/31/2008 07:34 AMReply
Anonymous
I am one of those 1,400 people and I must say that most of the 75% edits are dedicated to Wikipedia namespaces which include maintenance and administrative edits. This link is a proof http://stable.toolserver.org/editcount/result?username=X&projectname=enwiki&showgraphs=2d. You can replace X with any username from this list of Wikipedians by number of edits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits. In my case, only half of my 40,000 or so edits are dedicated to articles namespace. Posted 12/31/2008 12:05 PMReply
Anonymous
By that logic, text books should be completely useless... Posted 01/03/2009 02:24 AMReply
Anonymous
this is an intellectually dishonest article. if standard print journals were criticized in the same manner you might say something like this:

"startling, as few as 2000 individuals are responsible for the production of 80% of all new academic writing on an annual basis."

and then you'd go and supply a list of 2000 people who were editors of traditional academic journals like Nature or Lancet.

why should any of us be startled and concerned to learn that articles have authors and editors? furthermore, why should anyone find it unusual that a small number of highly productive individuals are responsible for the lion's share of the work? isn't that the exact same pattern in nearly every industry? haven't you ever worked in a typical office where there are 2 guys who do everything and 18 jerk-offs who play solitaire and check their e-mail all day?
Posted 01/03/2009 02:35 AMReply
Anonymous
The central statement of this article fails to pass basic arithmetic test.
The author states: "There are millions of people who browse Wikipedia in any given month, but only 2 percent of them (roughly 1,400) are responsible for editing nearly 75 percent of the information on the entire website."

2% of just one million is 20,000. Where 1,400 comes from?
Posted 01/03/2009 02:52 AMReply
Anonymous
"You know what that means: Wikipedia will never be accepted by professors, so get used to going to the—gasp—library and reading—cringe—books."

Sorry... how does this mean that at all? That's like saying... "Eggs a blue. You know what that means? GASP! You can't fly.
Posted 01/03/2009 03:06 AMReply
Anonymous
You know what that means: Wikipedia will never be accepted by professors, so get used to going to the (gasp) library and reading (cringe) books.

Sorry... how does this mean that at all? That's like saying... "Eggs are blue. You know what that means? GASP! You can't fly.
Posted 01/03/2009 03:07 AMReply
Anonymous
we should pay more attention on the democracy of wikipedia in some country Posted 01/03/2009 03:16 AMReply
Anonymous
For the 234,255,436th time:

Encyclopaediae are not research sources. They are general overviews and pointers to research sources.

If you're going to get laughed at for citing Wikipedia, you're going to get exactly as laughed at for citing Britannica.
Posted 01/03/2009 03:18 AMReply
Anonymous
The moral of this story is non-existent. Less contributors does not make an article less accurate. In fact, an ambitious group of interested individuals who care about content is probably better for the accuracy of the site than a cluster**** of jokers and comedians trying to ruin everybody's day. The only question that has and will ever matter? Citing sources. So long as contributors do that, the skeptics can shut it. Posted 01/03/2009 03:22 AMReply
Anonymous
u got it Posted 01/03/2009 03:30 AMReply
Anonymous
Thank you so much to the people, including the individual above, who put so much effort into wikipedia. Doesn't matter what they say, wikipedia is one of the most significant things in terms of advancing the idea of doing the "right thing" that has ever happened. Who cares if it can't be cited - the collective intelligence and wisdom of humanity must surely be increasing at a faster rate than ever before largely because of this site. Thanks again! :-) Posted 01/03/2009 03:34 AMReply
Anonymous
that‘s cool Posted 01/03/2009 04:28 AMReply
Anonymous
wikipedia is absolutely brilliant. Posted 01/03/2009 04:34 AMReply
Anonymous
The reason Wikipedia is a total failure is related to the point of this story. A very small group of "Wikinerds" absolutely dominate the place and will squelch and shout down any opinions or even FACTS they do not like. It is an absolute disaster.

-Michael
Muckbeast - Game Design and Virtual Worlds
http://www.muckbeast.com
Posted 01/03/2009 05:06 AMReply
Anonymous
lacy hart, you're a ****ing idiot
how many editors are there for the encyclopedia? *gasp* 4000 or so? can you say conspiracy?

more like, a lot of the entries contain common knowledge that almost anyone would know, enough with the bashing, jackass
Posted 01/03/2009 05:10 AMReply
Anonymous
Anonymous
75% of edits does not equal 75% of content, especially as many edits to Wikipedia are done by bots to fix formatting of dates or tables, or correcting simple spelling errors. Posted 01/03/2009 07:31 AMReply
Anonymous
The guy who wrote this sucks at life. Posted 01/03/2009 07:47 AMReply
Anonymous
This article is such BS, there are 1,620 administrators alone on Wikipedia now. Don't read the article fact checked by a few dozen people, read a book with 1 author! Posted 01/03/2009 08:00 AMReply
Anonymous
Math is fun Lacy. Look into it before you blog. The fact that you still havent updated the post is almost scary. Posted 01/03/2009 08:30 AMReply
Anonymous
Michael (Muckbeast) ... epic fail.

"The reason Wikipedia is a total failure is related to the point of this story... It is an absolute disaster."

If your argument against Wikipedia is based on the outdated info on this (rubbish) article or because your edits to "Rick Santorum" keep getting reverted then you're missing the point. Wikipedia is a massive success. It doesn't have to be 100% accurate or cover everything in the world, it just has to be good enough for a free, publicly editable encyclopedia.

And these figures are way out of date. More recent research suggests most *content* comes from random contributers who make a handful of additions. Bots and scripts account for these "master wikipedians" everyone talks about.
Posted 01/03/2009 09:22 AMReply
Anonymous
Doe's that mean that: if it's in a book it's true?
grow up!
Posted 01/03/2009 10:19 AMReply
Anonymous
TO ME IT SOUNDS LIKE ALL OF THESE COMMENTS ARE FROM THE 2%!!!

But obviously the original content has to come from somewhere, ya think they just pulled it out of Funk & Wagnall?!?!
Posted 01/03/2009 10:55 AMReply
Anonymous
At the end of the day the content is accurate and that is what counts, not who wrote it Posted 01/03/2009 11:07 AMReply
Anonymous
You make it sound like this small 'select' group is trying to fill Wikipedia with false information and subliminal messages to brainwash us...Honestly I don't think this group has any bad intentions and these are just edits.

Also when writing a college paper Wikipedia should be a starting point since it cites sources for you to go and research yourself, the professors are probably wikipedia hating because they're afraid of the internet...
Posted 01/03/2009 11:10 AMReply
Anonymous
why are people so eager to ridicule wikipedia, think about what your getting for what your paying, knowledge should be free, so stop this nonsense and contribute, instead of writing useless and misleading posts. Posted 01/03/2009 11:12 AMReply
Anonymous
I quote wikipedia at least once a day. Posted 01/03/2009 11:13 AMReply
Anonymous
The situation is even worse than the statistics indicate; since most of those making edits are not actually contributing content: as a WP contributor who has created a dozen articles from scratch and contributed content to antoher dozen, most edits performed by the inside crowd (Wales' gang of 500) are deletes of material they deem unworthy to be part of WP. These Deletion Police (what some term deletionsist) comprise the bulk of those editing; yet they don't contribute anything, they only take-away from WP. Posted 01/03/2009 11:15 AMReply
Anonymous
This article relies on speculation. Rather than assuming the viability of wikipedia, we can probably measure it:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061127-8296.html
Posted 01/03/2009 12:07 PMReply
Anonymous
And...

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
Posted 01/03/2009 12:08 PMReply
Anonymous
Content is only viable if it was written by an expert. I'm sure the editors of Wikipedia are good at what they do, but its hard to imagine that they have a professional understanding of everything they write. Posted 01/03/2009 12:20 PMReply
Anonymous
The percentage might be higher if innocent users weren't blocked from editing {within an IP address range) due to others' harassing behavior. Posted 01/03/2009 12:23 PMReply
Anonymous
yeah, terrrible math. if there are "millions" and if it's 2 percent, then that's 20,000 per million. this is stupid. Posted 01/03/2009 1:09 PMReply
Anonymous
Wikipedia Edits Are Made By Amazing People.
Also, Wikipedia itself is amazing when you realize
the quality of the content and the revenue it generates.
thanks from tony at:
http://www.ntopics.com/
Posted 01/03/2009 1:24 PMReply
Anonymous
Anyone concerned with the reliability of Wikipedia should read the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

Eric Wright
Posted 01/03/2009 1:37 PMReply
Anonymous
Is this article talking about all languages or just the English Wiki? If a student quotes a fact found in an article that was written in say, Japanese, and the professor does not know Japanese, how can that professor say the article is not reliable or be used as a 'source'? Posted 01/03/2009 1:38 PMReply
Anonymous
you mean read a book edited by ONE person over Wiki's 1700 with free access to all?

How many people contribute to an Encyclopedia? I'm sure far less...
Posted 01/03/2009 1:47 PMReply
Anonymous
It is the classic power law, Clay Shirky talks about in his book "Here comes Everybody": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law Posted 01/03/2009 3:21 PMReply
Anonymous
How many of those edits are simply grammar corrections, adding categories and other things that contain no information? I imagine there are a small number of people who fancy themselves "proofreaders" who make a very large number of very small edits. Posted 01/03/2009 3:21 PMReply
Anonymous
Who says? Posted 01/03/2009 3:28 PMReply
Anonymous
How many authors contra contributors is it of the books? Posted 01/03/2009 4:16 PMReply
Anonymous
Wikipedia is a wonderful tool that we should not take for granted. If people would spend more time on Wikipedia they would become a lot more knowledgeable. Wikipedia is great for getting a summary or an overview of just about anything. It's a great place to start when wanting to learn something. Just like a lot of the other things i read, i approach the information
provided with skepticism, and if needed I will verify the information with other sources. Wikipedia also provides links to sources, which many are of great use. I understand that Wikipedia can be improved, but I appreciate all the free info it provides.
Posted 01/03/2009 4:23 PMReply
Anonymous
this is not true. see the article "who the hell writes wikipedia anyway?". these 1400 or whatever number actually just edit the information and format the larger contributions of the random people who add large amounts of info to each page. these 1400 or whatever people are important, but they by no means have written wikipedia by themselves, or even the majority of it. Posted 01/03/2009 6:13 PMReply
Anonymous
Citation needed. Posted 01/03/2009 6:14 PMReply
Anonymous
More maths problems: Firstly the number of edits made by the early users distorts the result. For example, if one user makes 1 post a month for 40 months, then 10 new users join, each making 1 edit a month for 10 months, there will be a total of 50 + 10 X 10 = 150 posts. One may conclude that one person makes 33% of all edits because that's what the statistics show. However he is posting at the same rate as the rest on a monthly basis.

According to the lists found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits
One of the authors, "Rjwilmsi" made some 60'000 edits between 16 September 2008 and 20 November 2008. That's 924 edits a day, 462 an hour or 8 posts a minute, or one post every 6 seconds!!! How does he do it? When does that guy eat, sleeep or take a crap? Obviously these can not be "quality" posts.

However, it's not just the top guy, who is over-posting. In the same period half of the top editors posted posted at the rate of more than 1 post a minute. If they work 8 hours a day, Spend 8 hours posting to Wikipedia, and 8 hours sleeping, and take no weekends or holidays, that still makes one post every 20 seconds. The educational value of such posts is clearly in doubt. Maybe many of them make thousands of worthless changes to useless pages in order to get their edit score up and beat the next guy.

If Jimmy Wales were correct that only 1400 users make 75% of the edits, then that would imply that each of these users makes thousands of edits a month (unlikely).

I find that a short edit, such as finding an article, locating something which COULD be changed quickly, (- like the word order, although not always needing such a change), and editing, changing and saving, takes a minimum of 5 minutes for me. Any meaningful edit would of course take much longer. I think if the statistics showed "meaningful" edits, then the numbers would be more like the 80/20 that Jimmy Wales originally expected to find. If I spent 8 hours a day editing Wikipedia, just for the Hell of it, then the most I could do would be 80 edits a day, all of low quality.

There are around 9 million registered users of Wikipedia, of whom around 1 in 10 have a "user page" implying that they are active in some way, i.e some 900'000. However only around 150'000 registered users actually edit in a typical month. This implies that the active users represent less than 2% of the Wikipedia user base. This is in line with Jimmy Wales assertion that 2% of users edit 75% of Wikipedia, but the number of individuals this represents must be well in excess of the 1400 people he mentions.

Wikipedia gets around 60 million unique visitors every month, yet of those only around 150'000 or 0.25% actually edit anything. http://siteanalytics.compete.com/wikipedia.org/?metric=uv
Posted 01/03/2009 7:36 PMReply
Anonymous
Evidently no one decided to read the article that's cited. If you had, or if this blog wasn't deliberately misrepresenting the statistics, you'd have seen this particularly interesting bit:
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).
Posted 01/03/2009 10:28 PMReply
Anonymous
that makes no sense....millions of people use it (meaning number is 1 million+), yet 2% of that number is 1400?.......if 2% is only 1400....then that means it should be 700,000 in total that visit the site........this guy needs to learn some arithmetic Posted 01/03/2009 10:54 PMReply
Anonymous
lol, their dumb
they said "millions of people"
hey dumb^#$!s, 2%= 0.02 times (even 1m) = 20,000 people, if 2%= 1400, thats only 700,000 people total.

God, whats the world coming to...douche bags
Posted 01/04/2009 01:47 AMReply
Anonymous
Anonymous
NERDS! Posted 01/04/2009 05:17 AMReply
Anonymous
Spend less time defending Wikipedia's past and look at its present. There's a reason it's coming under heavy fire currently, and more and more people have their own horror stories to tell about trying to use it or edit it. Follow blinding, and don't be surprise when someone laughs when you suffer "Wikiality". (http://www.wikiality.com/Main_Page) Posted 01/04/2009 4:50 PMReply
Anonymous
I would rather have a select group of intelligent folks making the edits rather than a bunch of loons trying to "add" to community knowledge. Loons please go to digg/delicious where mindless bookmarking rules. Posted 01/04/2009 6:42 PMReply
Anonymous
The numbers are not trustable because of the many automated robots and mass changes due to spam and vandalism.

Even if the numbers were to be taken seriously, it still stands: if 75% of wikipedia are written by 1400 people, then 25% of the edits are by experts in their specific field. And actually there are "Approximately 100,000 active editors (defined as users who made more than 5 changes in the last month)" according to the wikimedia foundation.

So the whole article is biased, wrong numbers, and tries to make a critique point ignoring the common knowledge about the "long tail"
Posted 01/05/2009 06:58 AMReply
Anonymous
"lol, their dumb
they said "millions of people"
hey dumb^#$!s, 2%= 0.02 times (even 1m) = 20,000 people, if 2%= 1400, thats only 700,000 people total.

God, whats the world coming to...douche bags"

700,000*0.02=14,000
70,000*0.02=1,400

So you got it wrong too, by a factor of 10. Douchebag.
Posted 01/06/2009 10:00 PMReply
Anonymous
Ummm!!! Who are people people editing the entries? There are programs in place with Professors from all over the country adding and monitoring wikipedia entries, not to forget the software in place to block random non-referenced entries. Posted 01/07/2009 10:12 AMReply
Anonymous
Those of you noting that most textbooks are written by about 2,000 people fail to understand those 2,000 are people have Master or Ph.D's in the subject. The 1,400 contributors to Wikipedia don't. In fact, the largest contributor busted was a high school 17 year old posing as a college professor! Since when has a textbook author been busted for not having credentials? Posted 06/04/2009 03:27 AMReply
Anonymous
Always leading the avant-garde of fashion without compromising traditional craftsmanship of luxury leather goods
[url=http://www.louisvuittonlive.com louis vuitton]
[url=http://www.louisvuittonlive.com Louis Vuitton Replica]
[url=http://www.louisvuittonlive.com Louis Vuitton outlet] is also active in other ...
Cheap[url=http://www.favorluxury.com Louis Vuitton]Replica Handbags,Purses,Wallets Outlet and
[url=http://www.favorluxury.com Louis Vuitton Replica]
Designer Bags,Shoes Outlet Store - discount price is our special offer, [url=http://www.favorluxury.com Louis Vuitton Outlet]
Posted 08/24/2009 02:35 AMReply
Anonymous
I wish I could edit your post. God, That was an awful read. Interesting topic though. Posted 08/31/2009 03:03 AMReply
Anonymous
Thanks for the nice post.
<a href="http://how2staylonger.info">how to last longer</a>
</br>
<a href="http://antiaging-hq.info">best anti aging skin care products</a>
</br>
<a href="http://hubpages.com/hub/How-can-I-last-longer-in-bed-and-satisfy">how to lastlonger</a>
Posted 09/14/2009 6:57 PMReply
Anonymous
Great post!Recommend a great place for you:
<a href="http://www.brandname-clothing.com/"; title="Ed Hardy">Ed Hardy</a>
<a href="http://www.brandname-clothing.com/"; title="Ed Hardy Clothing">Ed Hardy Clothing</a>
<a href="http://www.brandname-clothing.com/"; title="Ralph Lauren Polo">Ralph Lauren Polo</a>
<a href="http://www.brandname-clothing.com/"; title="Juicy Couture">Juicy Couture</a>
Precision production, not to be missed
Posted 10/13/2009 03:24 AMReply
Anonymous
If [URL=http://www.replical.com]Designer replica handbags[/URL] are indeniably the most choice of modern women, other leading brands continuously experience huge demand. Also, our [URL=http://www.replical.com/louis-vuitton-handbags-c-1.html] Louis Vuitton Handbags [/URL], associating sophistication and tradition, attract the eye of tasteful women... Also, to satisfy the tastes of each woman, we carry a very wide range of&nbsp;[URL=http://www.replical.com] replica handbags [/URL], including copies of bags by [URL=http://www.replical.com/chanel-handbags-c-94.html]Chanel handbags[/URL] , Fendi handbags,&nbsp; [URL=http://www.replical.com/miumiu-handbags-c-76.html]Mulberry handbags[/URL] ,Marc Jacobs handbags, [URL=http://www.replical.com/gucci-handbags-c-47.html]Gucci handbags[/URL] ,Yves Saint Laurent handbags, [URL=http://www.replical.com/balenciaga-handbags-c-79.html]Balanciaga handbags[/URL] ,Miu Miu handbags,
[URL=http://www.replical.com/thomaswylde-handbags-c-118.html]Thomas Wylde handbags[/URL] , Mulberry handbags, [URL=http://www.replical.com/prada-handbags-c-99.html]Prada handbags[/URL] ,Coach handbags,and [URL=http://www.replical.com/hermes-handbags-c-115.html]Hermes handbags[/URL] ...We are continually updating and adding more and more products from famous brand such as LV, [URL=http://www.replical.com/marc-jacobs-handbags-c-111.html]Marc Jacobs handbags[/URL],&nbsp; Gucci,Dior, Chanel, [URL=http://www.replical.com/chloe-handbags-c-84.html]Chloe handbags[/URL] ,Fendi, Balenciaga , [URL=http://www.replical.com/coach-handbags-c-164.html]Coach handbags[/URL] and more!Such as,all [URL=http://www.replical.com/fendi-handbags-c-93.html]Fendi handbags[/URL] of the materials are exactly the same as the genuine and all the products are produced with elaborate technique. . . All [url=http://www.replical.com/miumiu-handbags-c-76.html]Miu Miu handbags[/URL] also come with a dust cover, certificate of authenticity card and care booklet
Posted 10/31/2009 11:44 AMReply
Anonymous
Anonymous
[url=http://www.huai.com] Baidu[/url]
<a href="http://www.huai.com">; Baidu</a>
Baidu
Posted 11/04/2009 02:45 AMReply

Add a comment

Anonymous comment

Please enter the code or log in.

Facebook Comment