Results [...] support the theory that experts are unaware of demand [i.e. experienced editors do not usually check traffic levels of the articles they edit] but they are stimulated to respond to article consumption if consumers signal demand for that particular good through their contributions as novice producers. Very true. I think that article views can get away from some people, so someone randomly editing an article for the first time to try and fix some error (even if they are unable to) generally captures editor attention more often than no one actively doing anything. –MJL‐Talk‐☖07:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do something slightly similar myself. When in an urban place that I haven't seen in recent years, I bring up the Commons App map or sometimes the WikiShootMe site. It shows me any nearby unphotographed Wikipedia articles or Wikidata items, and I snap them. Sometimes the object isn't there, because WD has the wrong coordinates. Editing WD coords correctly on the phone screen is difficult for me, but that's okay. I just edit the location incorrectly. It's seldom worse than before, and any watchers' watchlists will show it. And whose watchlist? Mine. Upon returning home I've got the big screen and can easily make it right.
But hmm, editors are unaware of the amount of demand for their particular articles. Maybe there ought to be an option to make the monthly reader count more prominent. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to highlight the exact same passage. It would be interesting if there was an opt-in tool where you could specify articles to "super-watchlist" and be notified of sudden pageview spikes (say, if a single day hits x10 of the previous monthly/yearly average, or x3 of the previous daily record). Perhaps it'd only be worthwhile for topics where there is high potential for this: a TV show whose latest season just aired; any living person (who might gain increased media attention for any number of reasons) etc. But, as the paper finds, I do encounter in practice that inexperienced/new editors draw my attention to new developments by adding a basic description that needs expansion and good referencing. The most recent case of this for me happened today with Death to 2020, which will have a sequel this year. As for editors being unaware of baseline levels of views, there's a possibility here for someone to write a bot to send a monthly opt-in personalised message saying "of the articles you've substantially contributed to [added/removed more than 500 bytes last month], these are the ones with the highest pageviews that you might consider giving priority to". — Bilorv (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...value expectancy theory "suggests that identifiability acts as a constraint on deviant behavior." Dissidents realize that they are outliers and their asocial behavior only finds voice when they can hide from the consequences. I suspect that many of the editors who protect IP editing know this as they, themselves, are deviants or are deviant-adjacent and support this asociality. (I deliberately edit under my real name.) Were Wikipedia to adapt some version of attributable point of view, as opposed to the farce of WP:NPOV (which isn't really neutral) perhaps we could include minority narratives to create a useful release valve for these dead-enders. Chris Troutman (talk)20:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Working in political areas, it appears to me that much involved vandalism (something that took the vandal more than 30 seconds to write) arises from the vandal's perceived lack of political autonomy and a lack of representation of their views in mainstream media. Wikipedia merely repeats what the (fact-based) mainstream media say, but we are editable where other news sources are not. Media narratives arise from one of two places: the elite dictate what narrative to impose on the public (Rupert Murdoch is the most-cited example here); or market interests dictate that a news source should, in a hyperpartisan manner, manufacture sensationalised stories in whatever topics research indicates will be most-clicked on. Both types of narratives are exclusionary of many people in our society. The more superficial vandalism (racist comments, blanking etc.) in political topics is more a consequence of mainstream media manufacturing negative attention on a particular person or scapegoat. Most of it is fairly transient, but sometimes it amounts to long-term persistent attacks from what is undoubtedly the same group of people who will be sending death threats on social media and otherwise engaging in harassment and violence. — Bilorv (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to Recent research