3 ms·
None of the comments in this submission's thread so far seem to be related to the article's content (the headline was tantalizing, but the article itself is rea
by kick 7y ago
None of the comments in this submission's thread so far seem to be related to the article's content (the headline was tantalizing, but the article itself is really cool), so to try and counteract that, here's one that's directly related:
As it says, Wikipedia is written by vast amounts of people. The myth that only a small number of people contribute is just that: a myth. Checking edit histories on anything but the most niche of articles would demonstrate this, but you could also do the same analysis he did today and see if you can replicate his result; it's been a few years now, things probably look slightly different.
This has gotten more relevant over time even though the people perpetuating the myth have changed, along with their motives for doing so. One of the more popular and long-lasting myths!
- saagarjha 7y agoI don't get why you'd want to perpetuate the myth of Wikipedia editors being this small, powerful in-group of people anyways…
- thrwaway69 7y agoPossibly to discredit it as having a political identity of its own or something because small group of people can be more biased openly than a large group?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- DiogenesKynikos 7y agoEach subject area is controlled by a relatively small number of people. There are about a dozen editors on each side of the Israeli-Palestinian issue who duke it out at each related article. There are about two dozen centrist Democrats who own most modern American politics articles. As a whole, Wikipedia may be edited by a large number of people, but if you spend any time editing any given subject area, you get to know the one or two dozen people who control it pretty quickly.