The Signpost

A monthly overview of recent academic research about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, also published as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter.

Pierre Lévy
"As of early 2015, the typical edit [on the English Wikipedia] is made by an account that is over 5 years old."


  1. ^ Livingstone, Randall M. (2015-06-26). "Models for Understanding Collective Intelligence on Wikipedia". Social Science Computer Review. 34 (4): 497–508. doi:10.1177/0894439315591136. ISSN 0894-4393. S2CID 60657789. Closed access icon
  2. ^ Zangerle, Eva; Schmidhammer, Georg; Specht, Günther (2015). "#Wikipedia on Twitter: Analyzing Tweets about Wikipedia" (PDF). OpenSym '15. doi:10.1145/2788993.2789845. S2CID 5959813.
  3. ^ William Hwang, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Mari Ostendorf, and Wei Wu: Aligning Sentences from Standard Wikipedia to Simple Wikipedia. NAACL-HLT, 2015. PDF
  4. ^ James Grimmelmann. "The Virtues of Moderation.…" Yale Journal of Law and Technology. 17.42 (2015)
  5. ^ Agirre, Eneko; Barrena, Ander; Soroa, Aitor (2015-03-05). "Studying the Wikipedia Hyperlink Graph for Relatedness and Disambiguation". arXiv:1503.01655 [cs.CL].
  6. ^ Ali Ismayilov, Dimitris Kontokostas, Sören Auer, Jens Lehmann, Sebastian Hellmann. "Wikidata through the Eyes of DBpedia".
  7. ^ Hu, Xuan; Gao, Liangcai; Lin, Xiaoyan; Tang, Zhi; Lin, Xiaofan; Baker, Josef B. (2013). "WikiMirs: A Mathematical Information Retrieval System for Wikipedia". Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. JCDL '13. New York, NY, USA: ACM. pp. 11–20. doi:10.1145/2467696.2467699. ISBN 978-1-4503-2077-1. Closed access icon
  8. ^ Laxström, Niklas; Giner, Pau; Thottingal, Santhosh (2015-06-05). "Content Translation: Computer-assisted translation tool for Wikipedia articles". arXiv:1506.01914 [cs.CL].
  9. ^ Müller-Birn, Claudia; Karran, Benjamin; Lehmann, Janette; Luczak-Rösch, Markus (2015-05-24). "Peer-production system or collaborative ontology development effort: what is Wikidata?". doi:10.1145/2788993.2789836. S2CID 15126336. OpenSym 2015
  10. ^ Schroeder, Ralph; Taylor, Linnet (2015-02-24). "Big data and Wikipedia research: social science knowledge across disciplinary divides". Information, Communication & Society. 18 (9): 1039–1056. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2015.1008538. ISSN 1369-118X. S2CID 144817168.
  11. ^ Liao, Han-Teng (2015-03-15). "Comparing language development in Wikipedia in terms of page views per Internet users". Blog of Han-teng Liao, Oxford Internet Institute.
  12. ^ Guisado-Gámez, Joan; Prat-Pérez, Arnau (2015-05-06). "Understanding Graph Structure of Wikipedia for Query Expansion". Proceedings of the GRADES'15: 1–6. arXiv:1505.01306. doi:10.1145/2764947.2764953. ISBN 9781450336116. S2CID 8058094.
  13. ^ Kennedy, Ryan; Forbush, Eric; Keegan, Brian; Lazer, David (April 2015). "Turning Introductory Comparative Politics and Elections Courses into Social Science Research Communities Using Wikipedia: Improving Both Teaching and Research". PS: Political Science & Politics. 48 (2): 378–384. doi:10.1017/S1049096514002157. ISSN 1537-5935. S2CID 147555546. Closed access icon / Author's copy
  14. ^ Pfundner, Alexander; Schönberg, Tobias; Horn, John; Boyce, Richard D; Samwald, Matthias (2015-05-05). "Utilizing the Wikidata System to Improve the Quality of Medical Content in Wikipedia in Diverse Languages: A Pilot Study". Journal of Medical Internet Research. 17 (5): 110. doi:10.2196/jmir.4163. ISSN 1438-8871. PMC 4468594. PMID 25944105.
  15. ^ Rechenberg, U.; Josten, C.; Klima, S. (2015). "Is it Possible to Enhance our Expert Knowledge from Wikipedia?". Zeitschrift für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie. 153 (2): 171–176. doi:10.1055/s-0034-1396207. ISSN 1864-6743. PMID 25874396. S2CID 196457871. Closed access icon (German, with English abstract)
  16. ^ Yasseri, Taha; Bright, Jonathan (2015-05-05). "Wikipedia traffic data and electoral prediction: Towards theoretically informed models". EPJ Data Science. 5. arXiv:1505.01818. doi:10.1140/epjds/s13688-016-0083-3. S2CID 256241960.
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

Average Account age by year

If we weren't recruiting any new editors the community would be getting a year older each year, so six months means we are still getting new editors. On the face of it this looks very healthy, after our initial period of exponential growth when the average editor had been here less than a year we are now getting a bit more experienced. We are still getting lots and lots of newbies, but with community size broadly flat we are only keeping as many as we lose. My suspicion is that if we combine this with other measures we would find that despite a steady inflow of newbies we are broadly stable, but as we have no way to work out our twenty let alone fifty year retention it is hard to know how healthy this is. Logically a new volunteer endeavour whose founding generation skewed very young will continue to get older and more experienced for decades, at some point if all goes very well indeed, the experience gained annually by the remaining community getting a year older will balance the experience that is dying, retiring or being blocked, and the number of experienced editors lost will match newbies joining. But an organisation barely 14 years old should be decades from such stability, even if we knew editors ages, or which former editors are still alive, or which "newbies" are anything but. But nice work, thanks for doing this. ϢereSpielChequers 22:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how charmingly Hegelian. a darker view would be that there needs to be twice as much new editor retention to get to a steady state. this is a long term trend that no amount of happy talk or software change has budged. i don't see any measure of increased productivity of the remainders compensating for the decreased numbers. when the work load and backlogs are growing, it is hard to imagine any reasonable person calling it healthy. actually fixing cultural problems is too hard, and so the community is resigned to the status quo. Duckduckstop (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Errh, aside from the issue that edit filters, faster vandalism reversion, the move of intrawiki links to wikidata and indeed the rise of wikidata all mean that we can't compare current editing levels to past ones and we don't really know when the true peak was; If you do worry about raw edit count, the first 6 months of this year have all had more editors doing more than 100 edits that month than the same month a year earlier. That doesn't mean there aren't hard cultural problems embedded in the community and in the environment in which we now operate. One, two or three months increase year on year could still be consistent with a long term trend - a single month could easily be down to comparing one month with 5 weekends against one with 4. But 6 months in a row showing an increase is not consistent with the theory that "there needs to be twice as much new editor retention to get to a steady state". ϢereSpielChequers 19:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0