Editing Wikipedia (section)

== Community ==
{{main|Wikipedia community}}
[[File:Wikimania - the Wikimentary.webm|thumb|start=00:04|thumbtime=00:16|Video of [[Wikimania#2005|Wikimania 2005]]—an annual conference for users of Wikipedia and other projects operated by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], was held in [[Frankfurt am Main]], Germany, August 4–8.]]
Each article and each user of Wikipedia has an associated "talk" page. These form the primary communication channel for editors to discuss, coordinate and debate.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.research.ibm.com/visual/papers/wikipedia_coordination_final.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070205111038/https://www.research.ibm.com/visual/papers/wikipedia_coordination_final.pdf |archive-date=5 February 2007 |first1 = Fernanda B. |last1 = Viégas |first2 = Martin M. |last2 = Wattenberg |first3 = Jesse |last3 = Kriss |first4 = Frank |last4 = van Ham |title = Talk Before You Type: Coordination in Wikipedia |publisher = Visual Communication Lab, [[IBM Research]] |date = January 3, 2007 |access-date = June 27, 2008 |author2-link = Martin M. Wattenberg |author-link = Fernanda B. Viégas}}</ref>
[[File:Editing Hoxne Hoard at the British Museum.ogv|thumb|right|Wikipedians and [[British Museum]] curators collaborate on the article [[Hoxne Hoard]] in June 2010]]

Wikipedia's community has been described as [[cult]]like,<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2005/dec/15/wikipedia.web20 |title = Log on and join in, but beware the web cults |first = Charles |last = Arthur |date = December 15, 2005 |work = [[The Guardian]] |location = London |access-date = December 26, 2008}}</ref> although not always with entirely negative connotations.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/08/03/wikipedia/index.html |title = Wikipedia: The know-it-all Web site |first = Kristie |last = Lu Stout |publisher = CNN |date = August 4, 2003 |access-date = December 26, 2008}}</ref> Its preference for cohesiveness, even if it requires compromise that includes disregard of [[credential]]s, has been referred to as "[[anti-elitism]]".<ref>{{cite web |title = Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism |url = https://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25 |website = [[Kuro5hin]], Op–Ed |first = Larry |last = Sanger |date = December 31, 2004 |quote = There is a certain mindset associated with unmoderated Usenet groups [...] that infects the collectively-managed Wikipedia project: if you react strongly to trolling, that reflects poorly on you, not (necessarily) on the troll. If you [...] demand that something be done about constant disruption by trollish behavior, the other listmembers will cry "censorship", attack you, and even come to the defense of the troll. [...] The root problem: anti-elitism, or lack of respect for expertise. There is a deeper problem [...] which explains both of the above-elaborated problems. Namely, as a community, Wikipedia lacks the habit or tradition of respect for expertise. As a community, far from being elitist, it is anti-elitist (which, in this context, means that expertise is not accorded any special respect, and snubs and disrespect of expertise are tolerated). This is one of my failures: a policy that I attempted to institute in Wikipedia's first year, but for which I did not muster adequate support, was the policy of respecting and deferring politely to experts. (Those who were there will, I hope, remember that I tried very hard.) |author-link = Larry Sanger |access-date = March 26, 2021 |archive-date = November 1, 2021 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20211101011352/http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25 |url-status = dead }}</ref>

Wikipedians sometimes award one another "virtual barnstars" for good work. These personalized tokens of appreciation reveal a wide range of valued work extending far beyond simple editing to include social support, administrative actions, and types of articulation work.<ref>{{cite book|title = Articulations of wikiwork: uncovering valued work in Wikipedia through barnstars | first1 = Travis Kriplean | last1 = Kriplean | first2 = Ivan | last2 = Beschastnikh |last3 = McDonald |first3 = David W. |name-list-style = vanc |publisher = Proceedings of the ACM |year = 2008 |doi = 10.1145/1460563.1460573 |page = 47 |isbn = 978-1605580074 |chapter = Articulations of wikiwork| s2cid = 7164949 }} {{subscription required|s}}</ref><!-- This is already covered in "Wikipedia community" and might be superfluous here. -->

Wikipedia does not require that its editors and contributors provide identification.<ref name="user identification" /> As Wikipedia grew, "Who writes Wikipedia?" became one of the questions frequently asked there.<ref>{{cite book |chapter= Power of the Few vs. Wisdom of the Crowd: Wikipedia and the Rise of the Bourgeoisie |title=CHI '07: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems |publisher = Viktoria Institute |first = Aniket |last = Kittur |year = 2007 |citeseerx = 10.1.1.212.8218}}</ref> Jimmy Wales once argued that only "a community&nbsp;... a dedicated group of a few hundred volunteers" makes the bulk of contributions to Wikipedia and that the project is therefore "much like any traditional organization".<ref name="blodget">{{cite news |url=https://www.businessinsider.com/2009/1/who-the-hell-writes-wikipedia-anyway |title = Who The Hell Writes Wikipedia, Anyway? |first = Henry |last = Blodget |work = Business Insider |date = January 3, 2009}}</ref> In 2008, a ''Slate'' magazine article reported that: "According to researchers in Palo Alto, one percent of Wikipedia users are responsible for about half of the site's edits."<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.slate.com/id/2184487 |title = The Wisdom of the Chaperones |date = February 22, 2008 |first = Chris |last = Wilson |work = [[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] |access-date = August 13, 2014}}</ref> This method of evaluating contributions was later disputed by [[Aaron Swartz]], who noted that several articles he sampled had large portions of their content (measured by number of characters) contributed by users with low edit counts.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia |title = Raw Thought: Who Writes Wikipedia? |first = Aaron |last = Swartz |date = September 4, 2006 |access-date = February 23, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140803134036/https://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia |archive-date = August 3, 2014 |df = mdy-all}}</ref>
<!-- Obsolete chart image needs to be updated as current definition of active users is over 125,000 [[File:ActiveWikipedians.PNG|thumb|356x356px|Historical chart of the number of Wikipedians considered as active by the Wikimedia Foundation]] -->
{{anchor|Decline in participation since 2007}}

The English Wikipedia has {{srlink|Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}}} articles, {{srlink|Special:ListUsers|{{NUMBEROFUSERS}}}} registered editors, and {{srlink|Special:ActiveUsers|{{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}}} active editors. An editor is considered active if they have made one or more edits in the past 30 days.

Editors who fail to comply with Wikipedia cultural rituals, such as signing talk page comments, may implicitly signal that they are Wikipedia outsiders, increasing the odds that Wikipedia insiders may target or discount their contributions. Becoming a Wikipedia insider involves non-trivial costs: the contributor is expected to learn Wikipedia-specific technological codes, submit to a sometimes convoluted dispute resolution process, and learn a "baffling culture rich with in-jokes and insider references".<ref name="labor squeeze on WP 1" /> Editors who do not log in are in some sense second-class citizens on Wikipedia,<ref name="labor squeeze on WP 1">{{cite journal |title = Wikipedia's Labor Squeeze and its Consequences |journal = Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law |author = Goldman, Eric |volume = 8}}</ref> as "participants are accredited by members of the wiki community, who have a vested interest in preserving the quality of the work product, on the basis of their ongoing participation",<ref name="legal edu and WP 1">{{cite journal |title = Wikipedia and the Future of Legal Education |author = Noveck, Beth Simone |journal = Journal of Legal Education |volume = 57}}</ref> but the contribution histories of anonymous unregistered editors recognized only by their [[IP address]]es cannot be attributed to a particular editor with certainty.

=== Studies ===
A 2007 study by researchers from [[Dartmouth College]] found that "anonymous and infrequent contributors to Wikipedia&nbsp;... are as reliable a source of knowledge as those contributors who register with the site".<ref name="sciam good samaritans 1">{{cite news |url=https://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=good-samaritans-are-on-the-money |title = Wikipedia "Good Samaritans" Are on the Money |work = Scientific American |date = October 19, 2007 |access-date = December 26, 2008}}</ref> Jimmy Wales stated in 2009 that "[I]t turns out over 50% of all the edits are done by just .7% of the users{{nbsp}}... 524 people{{nbsp}}... And in fact, the most active 2%, which is 1400 people, have done 73.4% of all the edits."<ref name="blodget" /> However, ''[[Business Insider]]'' editor and journalist [[Henry Blodget]] showed in 2009 that in a random sample of articles, most Wikipedia content (measured by the amount of contributed text that survives to the latest sampled edit) is created by "outsiders", while most editing and formatting is done by "insiders".<ref name="blodget" />

A 2008 study found that Wikipedians were less agreeable, open, and conscientious than others,<ref name="liebertonline view on WP users 1">{{cite journal | last1 = Amichai-Hamburger | first1 = Yair | last2 = Lamdan | first2 = Naama | last3 = Madiel | first3 = Rinat | last4 = Hayat | first4 = Tsahi | year = 2008| title = Personality Characteristics of Wikipedia Members | journal = CyberPsychology & Behavior | volume = 11 | issue = 6| pages = 679–681 | doi = 10.1089/cpb.2007.0225 | pmid = 18954273 }}</ref><ref name="newscientist view on WP users 1">{{cite web |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126883.900-wikipedians-are-closed-and-disagreeable.html |title = Wikipedians are 'closed' and 'disagreeable' |website = New Scientist |access-date = July 13, 2010}} {{subscription required|s}}</ref> although a later commentary pointed out serious flaws, including that the data showed higher openness and that the differences with the control group and the samples were small.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201303/the-misunderstood-personality-profile-wikipedia-members |title = The Misunderstood Personality Profile of Wikipedia Members |website = psychologytoday.com |access-date = June 5, 2016}}</ref> According to a 2009 study, there is "evidence of growing resistance from the Wikipedia community to new content".<ref name="newscientist WP boom to bust 1">{{cite web |last = Giles |first = Jim |title = After the boom, is Wikipedia heading for bust? |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17554-after-the-boom-is-wikipedia-heading-for-bust.html |website = New Scientist |date = August 4, 2009}}</ref>

=== Diversity ===
Several studies have shown that most Wikipedia contributors are male. Notably, the results of a Wikimedia Foundation survey in 2008 showed that only 13 percent of Wikipedia editors were female.<ref>{{cite news |last = Cohen |first = Noam |author-link=Noam Cohen |title = Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia's Contributor List |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?_r=0 |work = The New York Times |access-date = October 28, 2013}}</ref> Because of this, universities throughout the United States tried to encourage women to become Wikipedia contributors. Similarly, many of these universities, including [[Yale University|Yale]] and [[Brown University|Brown]], gave college credit to students who create or edit an article relating to women in science or technology.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ocad-to-storm-wikipedia-this-fall-1.1412807 |title = OCAD to 'Storm Wikipedia' this fall |work = CBC News |date = August 27, 2013 |access-date = August 21, 2014}}</ref> [[Andrew Lih]], a professor and scientist, wrote in ''[[The New York Times]]'' that the reason he thought the number of male contributors outnumbered the number of females so greatly was because identifying as a woman may expose oneself to "ugly, intimidating behavior".<ref>Dimitra Kessenides (December 26, 2017). [[Bloomberg News]] Weekly, "Is Wikipedia 'Woke'". p. 73.</ref> Data has shown that Africans are underrepresented among Wikipedia editors.<ref name="memeb">{{cite web|url=https://memeburn.com/2018/06/wikipedia-wikimania-africa-numbers/|title=The startling numbers behind Africa's Wikipedia knowledge gaps|date=June 21, 2018|website=memeburn.com}}</ref>