3 ms·

Of course. Like I said, "not trying to diminish his work". But it also gives the wrong impression of what editing Wikipedia entails. Anyone can edit, and even a

Of course. Like I said, "not trying to diminish his work". But it also gives the wrong impression of what editing Wikipedia entails. Anyone can edit, and even a single edit adds utility. One doesn't need to devote as much time has Pruitt has, or have reference books, or make as much edits. My point was that the commenters seem to have a misconception about who writes Wikipedia. It's not just Pruitt, it's people like you and me. It's also women, people from every continent, laymen, scientists, college students, retirees, people working alone, those at editathons, people who edit once, those who edit regularly, those who edit anonymously, those who edit under a pseudonym, etc. Wikipedia is a massive collaborative project; it's great that they're spotlighting his (commendable) efforts, but care should be taken to avoid outrageous misinformation like saying he wrote a third of Wikipedia. Those thousands of content creators deserve commensurate credit as well.

mjburgess 8y ago
I'd imagine there's a pareto distribution of edits amongst users, and so it might not be so unreasonable to think that a handful of people have written a significant percentage of what's there.
- snori74 8y ago
  Hmm, there's lots of ways you might go about measuring who has "written significant portion of what's there" and this "number of edits" is a poor one indeed. But the nature of Wikipedia means that entropy/rust/rot is a very really thing - and the wikignomes that tirelessly keep articles together in the face of endless silly vandals and clueless people "just trying to set the record straight" are big part of that. Internally there is some recognition in the relatively new "Thanks" feature - and the "barnstar" business. However, just as with Steveen Pruitt, I suspect that the main driver for editors is being able each day to make the world a slightly better place.

mjburgess 8y ago

I'd imagine there's a pareto distribution of edits amongst users, and so it might not be so unreasonable to think that a handful of people have written a significant percentage of what's there.

snori74 8y ago
Hmm, there's lots of ways you might go about measuring who has "written significant portion of what's there" and this "number of edits" is a poor one indeed. But the nature of Wikipedia means that entropy/rust/rot is a very really thing - and the wikignomes that tirelessly keep articles together in the face of endless silly vandals and clueless people "just trying to set the record straight" are big part of that. Internally there is some recognition in the relatively new "Thanks" feature - and the "barnstar" business. However, just as with Steveen Pruitt, I suspect that the main driver for editors is being able each day to make the world a slightly better place.