5 ms·

Wikipedia User Makes 1 Million Edits

49 points by kurtable 15y ago

citricsquid 15y ago
The cool part of this is the top comment on the article. It's from the executive editor at Encyclopædia Britannica, presumably wanting to offer him a job(?)
gwern 15y ago
As the article opines, there's something slightly sad about this milestone. I have roughly 100-120k edits on the English Wikipedia ( http://www.gwern.net/Wikipedia%20resume http://www.gwern.net/Wikipedia%20resume ), so I think I can speak from first-hand experience here. The problem with devoting this much effort to Wikipedia is not that your time is wasted. If you get this far, you've absorbed enough that you know how to make edits that will last and how to defend your material, and this guy in particular is making edits in areas particularly academic and safe from deletionists; and your articles will receives hundreds or thousands of visits a month (see stats.grok.se, I was a little shocked at how many page hits my articles collectively represent a month). The problem is that the benefits are going entirely to all your readers. It's practically a case-study in positive externalities. You don't even get intangibles like reputation. When you make 10,000 edits to your personal wiki, you will probably have written some pretty decent stuff, you will have established a personal brand, etc. Maybe it'll turn out great, maybe it'll turn out to be worth nothing. But when you make 10,000 edits to Wikipedia, you are guaranteed to get nothing. (Yes, I realize his user page lists a bunch of media coverage. That's great, but it's only because he's the first to pass 1m edits. What happens with the next editor to pass 1m, or heck, all the other editors on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_b... ?) To again turn to myself; when I was pouring much of my free energy and research interest into improving Wikipedia, I got nothing back except satisfaction and being able to point people at better articles during discussions. I began writing things that didn't fit on Wikipedia and got a personal website because I didn't want to use some flaky free service, and the world didn't end. I now have an actual reputation among some people; on occasion, people even email me with job offers to write things (discussing a little ebook with O'Reilly, for example). I owe my current (very modest) job to my writings being clearly mine, and not 'stuff on Wikipedia'. I'm not saying any of this is very impressive, but I am saying that these are benefits I would not have received had I continued my editing on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is wonderful, but it's sad to see people sacrificing so much of themselves for it.
- chime 15y ago
  > Wikipedia is wonderful, but it's sad to see people sacrificing so much of themselves for it. It is moving to see people sacrificing so much of themselves for others. I have nothing but absolute respect and awe for people like you and him. Yes, these are positive externalities and most people will not get any personal benefit from it, unlike say writing open-source software which can potentially get the authors work, fame, and more. But don't think of this as a useless clean-up job but rather unselfish charity in the form of passive tutoring. It is true that the world isn't going to end without you editing Wikipedia but if everyone in your position did the same, things would certainly get a lot less informative. No one can force you to contribute your free time to any project but if you do have the desire, drive, and time to do so, I wholeheartedly thank you for it.
- Alex3917 15y ago
  For better or worse the exact same thing is true for comments on blogs, social news sites, and elsewhere. The people writing the articles on their personal sites get all the credit, whereas the people analyzing and fact checking what others are saying are often providing just as much if not more value. Don't get me wrong, the vast majority of comments are completely crap, but so are the vast majority of blog posts. And because the average blog post gets way more attention than the average comment, trying to keep things from becoming completely insane is a completely thankless job. And unfortunately highly necessary, or else bloggers and journalists would basically have free range to completely make shit up and be wrong about basic facts, both purposely and accidentally, and generally spread all sorts of propaganda and misinformation. And what's more, leaving good comments is really an art form, one that's quite different from writing longer stuff but really on par with it in many ways. And yet there really aren't more than a handful of blog commenters who have achieved any measurable amount of reputation or success because of their comments. Commenters are generally seen at best as critics, people who complain instead of do. But really the role they play in the ecosystem is not just important but in fact essential.
  - TeMPOraL 15y ago
    Reminds me of [1], AKA why it's good to allow a moderate amount of trolling. [1] - http://lesswrong.com/lw/lr/evaporative_cooling_of_group_beliefs/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/lr/evaporative_cooling_of_group_beli...
gchucky 15y ago
Not to really detract from this, but it should be pointed out that the majority of this editor's edits were made using AutoWikiBrowser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser), a tool that automates editing. It's used mostly for repetitive tasks such as article cleanup and vandalism reverting. So this was not one million handwritten edits, just one million edits in general.
- jakejake 15y ago
  That makes a little more sense. If he started in 2005 it would require an edit roughly every 3 minutes over the course of 6 years working 24/7 to reach a million.
- aes256 15y ago
  Looking through the guy's recent contributions, as far as I could see for the past 24 hours or so was just hundreds of AWB edits on article talk pages; things like adding a widget saying an article is part of a particular wikiproject to a few dozen talk pages at once. I don't think we should be comparing wikipedia contributors on the number of edits they've made...
losethos 15y ago
He's a faithless secular humanist. If he had said "Water and you will be watered", it would be different. They love neighbor and not God and do not do miracles. God says... C:\LoseThos\www.losethos.com\text\WEALTH.TXT s their interest not only to degrade in all cases the value of the surplus produce of the colony, but in many cases to discourage and keep down the natural increase of its quantity. Of all the expedients that can well be contrived to stunt the natural growth of a new colony, that of an exclusive company is undoubtedly the most effectual. This, however, has been the policy of Holland, though their company, in the course of the present century, has given up in many respects the exertion of their exclu ---- Most important -- there is reciprocity with God. You just have to figure-out what He appreciates, like Cain and Abel. One time, God made it clear that honest measures were in play, not effort (but He's a softie:-). He likes the Beattles and called Christian Rock "musical privation" ---- The purpose of life is to entertain God, or provide for those who entertain God. I speak to the wind. God says... HolySpirit drama try_again umm heads_I_win_tails_you_lose ghastly to_infinity_and_beyond off_the_record hobnob in_other_words you're_in_big_trouble when_hell_freezes_over I_made_it_that_way I'm_not_dead_yet pride on_occassion chill_out no_more cowardice by_the_way I'm_thrilled pardon_the_french
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
ehutch79 15y ago
*marked not notable

49 points by kurtable 15y ago

The cool part of this is the top comment on the article. It's from the executive editor at Encyclopædia Britannica, presumably wanting to offer him a job(?)

gwern 15y ago

As the article opines, there's something slightly sad about this milestone. I have roughly 100-120k edits on the English Wikipedia ( http://www.gwern.net/Wikipedia%20resume http://www.gwern.net/Wikipedia%20resume ), so I think I can speak from first-hand experience here. The problem with devoting this much effort to Wikipedia is not that your time is wasted. If you get this far, you've absorbed enough that you know how to make edits that will last and how to defend your material, and this guy in particular is making edits in areas particularly academic and safe from deletionists; and your articles will receives hundreds or thousands of visits a month (see stats.grok.se, I was a little shocked at how many page hits my articles collectively represent a month). The problem is that the benefits are going entirely to all your readers. It's practically a case-study in positive externalities. You don't even get intangibles like reputation. When you make 10,000 edits to your personal wiki, you will probably have written some pretty decent stuff, you will have established a personal brand, etc. Maybe it'll turn out great, maybe it'll turn out to be worth nothing. But when you make 10,000 edits to Wikipedia, you are guaranteed to get nothing. (Yes, I realize his user page lists a bunch of media coverage. That's great, but it's only because he's the first to pass 1m edits. What happens with the next editor to pass 1m, or heck, all the other editors on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_b... ?) To again turn to myself; when I was pouring much of my free energy and research interest into improving Wikipedia, I got nothing back except satisfaction and being able to point people at better articles during discussions. I began writing things that didn't fit on Wikipedia and got a personal website because I didn't want to use some flaky free service, and the world didn't end. I now have an actual reputation among some people; on occasion, people even email me with job offers to write things (discussing a little ebook with O'Reilly, for example). I owe my current (very modest) job to my writings being clearly mine, and not 'stuff on Wikipedia'. I'm not saying any of this is very impressive, but I am saying that these are benefits I would not have received had I continued my editing on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is wonderful, but it's sad to see people sacrificing so much of themselves for it.

chime 15y ago
> Wikipedia is wonderful, but it's sad to see people sacrificing so much of themselves for it. It is moving to see people sacrificing so much of themselves for others. I have nothing but absolute respect and awe for people like you and him. Yes, these are positive externalities and most people will not get any personal benefit from it, unlike say writing open-source software which can potentially get the authors work, fame, and more. But don't think of this as a useless clean-up job but rather unselfish charity in the form of passive tutoring. It is true that the world isn't going to end without you editing Wikipedia but if everyone in your position did the same, things would certainly get a lot less informative. No one can force you to contribute your free time to any project but if you do have the desire, drive, and time to do so, I wholeheartedly thank you for it.
Alex3917 15y ago
For better or worse the exact same thing is true for comments on blogs, social news sites, and elsewhere. The people writing the articles on their personal sites get all the credit, whereas the people analyzing and fact checking what others are saying are often providing just as much if not more value. Don't get me wrong, the vast majority of comments are completely crap, but so are the vast majority of blog posts. And because the average blog post gets way more attention than the average comment, trying to keep things from becoming completely insane is a completely thankless job. And unfortunately highly necessary, or else bloggers and journalists would basically have free range to completely make shit up and be wrong about basic facts, both purposely and accidentally, and generally spread all sorts of propaganda and misinformation. And what's more, leaving good comments is really an art form, one that's quite different from writing longer stuff but really on par with it in many ways. And yet there really aren't more than a handful of blog commenters who have achieved any measurable amount of reputation or success because of their comments. Commenters are generally seen at best as critics, people who complain instead of do. But really the role they play in the ecosystem is not just important but in fact essential.
- TeMPOraL 15y ago
  Reminds me of [1], AKA why it's good to allow a moderate amount of trolling. [1] - http://lesswrong.com/lw/lr/evaporative_cooling_of_group_beliefs/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/lr/evaporative_cooling_of_group_beli...

gchucky 15y ago

Not to really detract from this, but it should be pointed out that the majority of this editor's edits were made using AutoWikiBrowser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser), a tool that automates editing. It's used mostly for repetitive tasks such as article cleanup and vandalism reverting. So this was not one million handwritten edits, just one million edits in general.

jakejake 15y ago
That makes a little more sense. If he started in 2005 it would require an edit roughly every 3 minutes over the course of 6 years working 24/7 to reach a million.
aes256 15y ago
Looking through the guy's recent contributions, as far as I could see for the past 24 hours or so was just hundreds of AWB edits on article talk pages; things like adding a widget saying an article is part of a particular wikiproject to a few dozen talk pages at once. I don't think we should be comparing wikipedia contributors on the number of edits they've made...

losethos 15y ago

He's a faithless secular humanist. If he had said "Water and you will be watered", it would be different. They love neighbor and not God and do not do miracles. God says... C:\LoseThos\www.losethos.com\text\WEALTH.TXT s their interest not only to degrade in all cases the value of the surplus produce of the colony, but in many cases to discourage and keep down the natural increase of its quantity. Of all the expedients that can well be contrived to stunt the natural growth of a new colony, that of an exclusive company is undoubtedly the most effectual. This, however, has been the policy of Holland, though their company, in the course of the present century, has given up in many respects the exertion of their exclu ---- Most important -- there is reciprocity with God. You just have to figure-out what He appreciates, like Cain and Abel. One time, God made it clear that honest measures were in play, not effort (but He's a softie:-). He likes the Beattles and called Christian Rock "musical privation" ---- The purpose of life is to entertain God, or provide for those who entertain God. I speak to the wind. God says... HolySpirit drama try_again umm heads_I_win_tails_you_lose ghastly to_infinity_and_beyond off_the_record hobnob in_other_words you're_in_big_trouble when_hell_freezes_over I_made_it_that_way I'm_not_dead_yet pride on_occassion chill_out no_more cowardice by_the_way I'm_thrilled pardon_the_french

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

ehutch79 15y ago

*marked not notable