On the Evolution of Wikipedia by Almeida, Mozafari, & Cho
Holy math! Complex calculus! I only got through advanced algebra in my early college days. Skimming (not without regret!) through the mathematical sections, I found I could still glean what the math indicates, because the writing is good, and the research interesting and original. The three authors appear to be breaking new ground with this Wikipedia study.
The findings of the study do not surprise me. A small number of “contributors” create most of the original articles on Wikipedia, while the vast majority tend to revise existing articles.
I envision nerdy dorks (like me–nothing wrong with being a nerdy dork) reading up on Wikipedia, finding something that’s not true and that cuts through to the very nature of their nerdy dorkiness. They get agitated, edit the page, breathe a dorky sigh of nerdy relief, and move on. My guess, of course far inferior in accuracy to Almeida, Mozafari and Cho’s extensive 2006 study, is that the majority of revisions made to Wikipedia articles resemble this scenario.
I award the authors 6,435 points for originality of work. I’d like to see a more recent study of Wikipedia–I’m sure the growth from 2006 to 2012 has skyrocketed!
On to the next reading piece….
Mediamorphosis (crossed out)
History! I feel as though we’ve covered this in class.
What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software by Tim O’Reilly (2005)
Lord, the more I read about the Internet’s first days, the less I miss them. Indeed, I abhor the thought of having to navigate that soup again. I remember being at my grandfather’s house the first time I used it. I searched for “Marilyn Manson.” I had no idea what I was doing. Netscape was the web browser–I remember being impressed that the little “N” icon had its own animation. As much as I use the internet now, for so many different things, most of which are Web 2.0-specific, I’d hate having to revert back to the beginning of it all.
You can almost make the case that if a site or product relies on advertising to get the word out, it isn’t Web 2.0.
That pretty much puts the nail into the coffin of Web 1.0 for me. Advertising, usually intrusive and unwanted, taking a back seat, is awesome. Television advertisements are the reason I haven’t paid for cable or dish television my entire life. Net-based tv has become my preferred way of watching–specifically, Netflix and Hulu. While Hulu has ads, they don’t seem as intrusive as cable ads. Also, ads on cable usually market themselves toward a less-educated social sector than those who’ve abandoned it in favor of my and millions of others’ preferred tv watching method, so they’re even more annoying to me than Hulu ads. Plus, there seem to be more of them on cable.
What I’m saying is bring on the new. The old is pissing me off and I’m ready to say goodbye. Web 2.0? Yes, please.
Wikipedia entry on Wikipedia
Awesome! Surprisingly I read it in one evening, after putting the kids to bed, but not without nodding off several times in my hard kitchen table chair. Still, great stuff. Understanding Wikipedia is to glean important insight into the future of information.
For all the negative reputation Wikipedia has encountered, it’s still a thing of almost magical properties, if for nothing but its originality, massive volume of information, its transparency, and love of the public. You go, Jimmy Wales. Ride that train.
I’m with you on the “Holy Math!” part. I did enjoy that first article the most, though – I thought it contained some interesting and surprising conclusions, one being that there are only a “small” number of contributors who are creating most of the original content. The Wikipedia article on Wikipedia says there’s only about 100,000 who are regularly active. Now, I’m not sure what their definition of “regularly active” is, but I thought that number would be a lot higher for 20 million articles!
Pingback: week 4 readings « Digital Communication Technologies
Wikipedia demonstrates the 80-20 rule, although these days we’ve turned this into the 90-9-1 rule (90 read, 9 share, 1 creates). No need to provide a reflection on each of the readings – feel free to synthesize (find common ground between them). And advertising is here to stay – it’s all around Web 2.0, despite any claims to the contrary.