Report claims Wikipedia losing editors in droves

November 30, 2009 by Lin Edwards, weblog

( -- The findings of a Spanish study claiming that Wikipedia's editors are leaving at an alarming rate have been refuted by the Wikimedia Foundation and by Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales.

The report by Dr Felipe Ortega, a research scientist with Madrid's Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, was published in the on 26 November. It reported a ten-fold increase in the number of leaving Wikipedia at the beginning of 2009 compared to the number in the equivalent period of 2008.

Wikipedia is open to contributions and relies entirely on volunteer contributors (editors), who create content, check the facts, correct errors and refine the entries in the . Editors can contribute anonymously or can open a free account and become logged editors.

The finding in the November report follows a detailed analysis over three years that Dr Ortega carried out for his doctoral thesis on Wikipedia. The thesis analyzed the complete history of changes made to Wikipedia by logged editors for the top ten language Wikipedias. Data analysis was speeded up by using a specially-written program called WikiXRay.

The results of that study showed a leveling off in the number of contributions and revisions made by logged editors in 2007-8. The numbers of new editors and those becoming inactive followed each other closely until the summer of 2006, when in all language editions the rate of those leaving overtook the rate of those joining for the first time. There was also a growing inequality in contributions becoming more biased towards a core of very active editors.

In the latest study Dr Ortega found a continuing decline, with a net loss of 49,000 editors in early 2009, but only 4,900 in the same period in 2008. The report suggested that recent changes aimed at improving the quality and accuracy of the site contents and reducing vandalism have meant a core group of volunteers now approves pages contributed or edited by new editors, and this slows down the process of getting the content on site. It also means more work is carried out by a decreasing number of highly active editors.

The responded to the latest report saying it was inaccurate and the number of editors is stable, but Wikimedia counts only those who have made five or more contributions, while Dr Ortega counts those who have made one or more. This means Wikimedia's number of editors is around one million, while Ortega's number is approximately three million.

Wikimedia Foundation's Deputy Director Erik Moeller, said the numbers of editors contributing to Wikipedia peaked in 2007, and then declined slightly, and have now stabilized. Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales also said the number of editors was stable, and there had been no alarming decline. Wales said a leveling off in the number of contributors was expected because you "can't keep growing forever."

was started in 2001 as an experiment, and is now one of the top most popular sites on the Internet.

© 2009

Explore further: Wikipedia operator gets $500,000 foundation grant

Related Stories

Wikipedia operator gets $500,000 foundation grant

August 21, 2009

(AP) -- The nonprofit organization that operates the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia has received a $500,000 grant from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation to expand its work bringing free educational content ...

Nature editors start online peer review

September 14, 2006

Editors of the prestigious scientific journal Nature have reportedly embarked on an experiment of their own: adding an online peer review process.

AMA seeks probe of journal editors' actions

March 30, 2009

(AP) -- The American Medical Association is seeking an investigation of claims that editors of its leading medical journal threatened a whistleblower who pointed out a researcher's conflict of interest.

Study suggests doctors could add to Wikipedia

April 30, 2009

(AP) -- Researchers are suggesting that doctors could be spending more time writing and editing Wikipedia pages on medical topics, despite questions that have been raised about the collaborative online encyclopedia's credibility.

Recommended for you

Earth's deep mantle flows dynamically

March 25, 2019

As ancient ocean floors plunge over 1,000 km into the Earth's deep interior, they cause hot rock in the lower mantle to flow much more dynamically than previously thought, finds a new UCL-led study.

Scientists solve mystery shrouding oldest animal fossils

March 25, 2019

Scientists from The Australian National University (ANU) have discovered that 558 million-year-old Dickinsonia fossils do not reveal all of the features of the earliest known animals, which potentially had mouths and guts.

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

4 / 5 (1) Dec 01, 2009
I would expect some sort of natural curve predicts the number of editors based on information maturity rather than editing policy. Consider the classification of information contributions based on their need for specialized knowledge, their need for promptness in new topics, and their need for confirmation on established topics. So each of those should impose a natural limit to the number of contributors that can effectively contribute, leaving others with the realization they can not contribute or their contribution is redundant. So because of this I think wikipedia policies may not be the determinant of the number of editors.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.