Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AMA: Steven Pruitt, a Wikipedian with 3M edits

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 39 posts

Re: AMA: Steven Pruitt, a Wikipedian with 3M edits

#11

Post by cooper12 »

One strange thing about the AMA is the reverent tone of some of the replies. Some people are saying "thanks for this article" or "thanks for getting me through school", etc. I think there's a misconception at play because people are assuming since he has the most edits, he wrote most of the content. It probably also doesn't help when there are blatantly false headlines like "Meet the man behind a third of what's on Wikipedia". [0] In actuality, a majority of the edits are semi-automated and minor fixes: think things like fixing typos, categorization, or page formatting.

Not trying to diminish his work, but hoping to provide some perspective. It's important that people understand the vast collaboration behind the project and the numerous voices that have built it up to what it is today. If one person was responsible for most of the content, it would be nowhere as diverse as it is.

[0]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meet-the-man-behind-a-third-of-...

Re: AMA: Steven Pruitt, a Wikipedian with 3M edits

#13

Post by nothrabannosir »

cooper12 wrote: post #11

One strange thing about the AMA is the reverent tone of some of the replies. Some people are saying "thanks for this article" or "thanks for getting me through school", etc. I think there's a misconception at play because people are assuming since he has the most edits, he wrote most of the content. It probably also doesn't help when there are blatantly false headlines like "Meet the man behind a third of what's on W…

On the other hand, we can assume all of those small edits add value. This gives Wikipedia more appeal (no typos, clean pages, etc), which, in turn, invites others to edit. Are those his contributions? No. Does he deserve some credit? Some.

It is always hard to measure these secondary and further effects. The best way to determinte the value is a market with independent actors. Thought experiment: imagine Wikipedia edits were paid in some currency. Doesn't have to be monetary; it could be e.g. karma. How much would he have gotten per edit? Sum it all up: that's his contribution.

One thing is for sure: it's more than just a motley of typo fixes. He has, indeed, added a lot of value to Wikipedia, albeit probably indirectly, and, thus, helped people through school.

Re: AMA: Steven Pruitt, a Wikipedian with 3M edits

#14

Post by bookofjoe »

wodenokoto wrote: post #8
taxidump wrote: post #6

How many hours per week do you spend on edits, on average?

You have to ask on reddit, this is just a meta discussion of the AMA.

I like the term "meta discussion" to characterize this comment thread. It describes and explains concisely what HN is about/does best.

Re: AMA: Steven Pruitt, a Wikipedian with 3M edits

#15

Post by Arkanosis »

skilled wrote: post #2

Apparently, higher-up, editors get tools that let them make modifications to multiple threads simultaneously. [1] And , Wikipedia happens to count those edits separately even if the editor applies the fix to multiple articles at once as a single action. [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/au2rjb/i_am_steven_pr...

Another editor here: that's entirely right.

3 millions edits, however, is still an astonishing accomplishment, even taking this into account. Edits that don't require any human thinking are usually done by bot accounts, and few of them have that many edits.

Re: AMA: Steven Pruitt, a Wikipedian with 3M edits

#16

Post by cooper12 »

nothrabannosir wrote: post #13
cooper12 wrote: post #11

One strange thing about the AMA is the reverent tone of some of the replies. Some people are saying "thanks for this article" or "thanks for getting me through school", etc. I think there's a misconception at play because people are assuming since he has the most edits, he wrote most of the content. It probably also doesn't help when there are blatantly false headlines like "Meet the man behind a third of what's on W…

On the other hand, we can assume all of those small edits add value. This gives Wikipedia more appeal (no typos, clean pages, etc), which, in turn, invites others to edit. Are those his contributions? No. Does he deserve some credit? Some. It is always hard to measure these secondary and further effects. The best way to determinte the value is a market with independent actors. Thought experiment: imagine Wikipedia ed…

Of course. Like I said, "not trying to diminish his work". But it also gives the wrong impression of what editing Wikipedia entails. Anyone can edit, and even a single edit adds utility. One doesn't need to devote as much time has Pruitt has, or have reference books, or make as much edits. My point was that the commenters seem to have a misconception about who writes Wikipedia. It's not just Pruitt, it's people like you and me. It's also women, people from every continent, laymen, scientists, college students, retirees, people working alone, those at editathons, people who edit once, those who edit regularly, those who edit anonymously, those who edit under a pseudonym, etc. Wikipedia is a massive collaborative project; it's great that they're spotlighting his (commendable) efforts, but care should be taken to avoid outrageous misinformation like saying he wrote a third of Wikipedia. Those thousands of content creators deserve commensurate credit as well.

Re: AMA: Steven Pruitt, a Wikipedian with 3M edits

#17

Post by mjburgess »

cooper12 wrote: post #16
nothrabannosir wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, we can assume all of those small edits add value. This gives Wikipedia more appeal (no typos, clean pages, etc), which, in turn, invites others to edit. Are those his contributions? No. Does he deserve some credit? Some. It is always hard to measure these secondary and further effects. The best way to determinte the value is a market with independent actors. Thought experiment: imagine Wikipedia ed…

Of course. Like I said, "not trying to diminish his work". But it also gives the wrong impression of what editing Wikipedia entails. Anyone can edit, and even a single edit adds utility. One doesn't need to devote as much time has Pruitt has, or have reference books, or make as much edits. My point was that the commenters seem to have a misconception about who writes Wikipedia. It's not just Pruitt, it's people like…

I'd imagine there's a pareto distribution of edits amongst users, and so it might not be so unreasonable to think that a handful of people have written a significant percentage of what's there.
Post reply on HN