Community Vital Signs: Measuring Wikipedia Communities’ Sustainable Growth and Renewal
- Objective 1 [O1]: assess the growth, stagnation, decline patterns in the history of Wikipedia language communities.
- Objective 2 [O2]: design a set of indicators to capture the degree of growth and renewal within communities.
- Objective 3 [O3]: validate the indicators with results from a sample of language communities and explore their potential role in affiliate planning.
- We study the evolution of the number of editors over time in the 50 major language editions, and identify groups of language editions following different patterns of growth, stagnation and decline;
- We propose a set of indicators (Vital signs) to assess and monitor community health, based on previous literature and community practices;
- We present the results obtained for a set of eight selected language editions, for which we received feedback from Wikimedia affiliates;
- We describe the iterative validation process based on holding focus group sessions after presentation in four Wikimedia conferences and two dedicated meetings with Wikimedia affiliates;
- We discuss implications for the Wikimedia movement and how targets based on the Vital Signs could be adopted by affiliates and integrated into their annual planning.
2.1. Communities Decline and Stagnation
2.1.1. Bureaucracy and Openness
2.1.2. Barriers to Entry
2.2. Community Health and Renewal
2.3. Indicators for Community Growth and Renewal
- RQ1 [Retention] How do Wikipedia communities retain new members over time?
- RQ2 [Stability] How stable is the composition of Wikipedia communities over time?
- RQ3 [Balance] How balanced are Wikipedia communities in terms of including new members over time and maintaining the old ones?
2.3.4. Special Functions
- RQ4 [Special functions] How are Wikipedia communities renewing their technical development (Techwizard) and project specialists?
- RQ5 [Administrators] How are the Wikipedia communities granting admin user rights (e.g., roles such as sysops) to new members?
2.3.6. Global Participation
- RQ6 [Global - Meta-wiki] How are Wikipedia language communities participating in global projects spaces (Meta-wiki)?
- RQ7 [Global - Local] What is the composition of Wikipedia language communities in terms of multilingual editors?
2.4. The Role of the Wikimedia Movement Affiliates
3.1. Research Process
3.1.1. Phase 1: Exploration
3.1.2. Phase 2: Design and Implementation
3.1.3. Phase 3: Validation
- To discuss the usefulness of each metric;
- To give any suggestion to improve the analysis (e.g., setting a different target value, or modifying some aspect of the data visualization);
- To consider the actor or actors who can take more responsibility in improving this Vital Sign for your Wikipedia language edition. Options are the affiliate, Wikimedia Foundation, and specific groups of editors;
- To explain which actions could help improve the current situation in relation to the target in the short or midterm horizon.
3.2. Definition of the Indicators
- Retention rate: this indicator is computed, according to the state of the art , as the percentage of new editors who edit at least once 60 days after their first edit.
- Stability: computed as the number of active editors by the number of months they have been active in a row. We have grouped the number of active months in six groups: first-month editing (regardless of whether the user had previously edited and then taken a break), two months editing in a row, three to six months, seven to twelve, thirteen to twenty-four, and more than twenty-four months in a row. Looking at the proportion of users who fall in each of these groups, it is possible to get a picture of the stability (or volatility) of a community.
- Balance: this indicator is given by the number and percentage of very active editors by year and by generation, defined as the lustrum of their first edit.
3.2.4. Special Functions
- Very active technical editors: the number of very active editors in technical namespaces, i.e., Mediawiki and Templates (Wikipedia contributors, ‘Wikipedia:Namespace’, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 25 January 2022, 02:37 UTC, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Namespace&oldid=1067769773 [accessed 19 February 2022]) broken down by year and by generation. Similarly, as with the previous measurement, here we focus on the very active technical editors who performed more than 100 edits in one month in technical namespaces (that is, templates and MediaWiki namespaces).
- Very active coordinators: the number of very active editors in coordination namespaces, i.e., Wikipedia and Help at least one month, broken down by year and by generation. In this other case, we repeat exactly the same analysis but considering only those very active editors who edit in the Help and Wikipedia namespaces (this is, Wikiprojects, Village Pump, among others). The number of editors for this second indicator tends to be higher. In the graph, we see the number of “Very active project coordinators”.
- Admins by year: number of admins by year of flag granted and by generation.
- Admins by lustrum: total number of active admins by generation at the current month.
- Admins ratio: ratio between the number of active admins and the number of active editors in a specific month.
3.2.6. Global participation
- Meta-wiki participation: ratio between the number of active editors in Meta-wiki that have as primary a given language edition and the number of active editors in that Wikipedia language edition during the same month.
- Primary language: this indicator aims at describing the composition of an editor community in terms of their primary language, looking at how many editors have this language edition as their primary one (primary editors), and for the remaining ones (non-primary editors), which is their primary language edition. Therefore, it consists in the distribution of the primary language edition of the editors contributing to a given language edition.
3.3. Code and Data
4.1. Community Growth, Stagnation, and Decline
4.2. Vital Signs
- Retention rate: we argue that a reasonable target could be set to a 3% retention rate to ensure there is renewal among editors, while it could be desirable to reach 5–7%. In general, communities should aim at reversing the declining trend in the retention rate.
- Fresh editors: We would argue setting a target of 30–40% of “fresh” editors. This may be desirable in order to have an influx of new energy and ideas. If higher than this, and especially over 60%, it may be an indicator of a lack of capacity to engage and stabilize the community. High percentages of fresh editors are only desirable when the number of active editors is growing.
- Long-time editors: with regard to the target for editors engaged for a long time, i.e., active for more than 1 year, a target share of around 33%, given as the sum of the 13–24 and >24 bins, seems appropriate. This value is indicative of a solid community able to carry on with long-term Wikiprojects and activities.
- Last generation: We believe a growing share of the last generation until occupying between 30–40% may be reasonable for a language edition that is not in a growth phase—larger when it is. We considered every generation to be 5 years (a lustrum), so, as a rule of thumb, we suggest that the last generation occupies from 15 to 40% depending on the years which have passed since its beginning (1–5).
- First generation: In addition, a share of editors of at least 5–15% from the first generation (typically 2001–2005) seems a desirable target as well. Although they might be at the end of their lifecycle and the growth may have occurred with the following generation (2006–2010). The share of every previous generation will inevitably decrease over time.
4.2.4. Special Functions
Very Active Technical Editors
- Very active technical editors: We believe that having at least 20 users as a minimum number of “very active technical editors” seems desirable considering the different tasks (bots, templates, etc.).
- Very active technical editors from the last generation: Given the usually low number of very active technical editors and the remarkable effort this role requires, it would be preferable that at least a consistent part of them were from newer generations; renewal is key. Therefore, we see a reasonable target of at least 30% very active technical editors from the last generation.
Very Active Coordinators
- Very active coordinators: we believe that the number of coordinators (“very active editors” in Wikipedia namespace) should be at least 20, and always larger than the number of very active technical editors, since taking coordination activities is key to engaging editors into contests, Wikiprojects, among others.
- Very active technical editors proportion: Furthermore, the proportion of coordinators should be a minimum of 5–15% of the very active editors to guarantee there are common initiatives that involve everyone. A low proportion of coordinators implies that very active editors are working in silos.
- New admins by year: we believe that to guarantee openness to positions of responsibility and privilege, there should be new admins every year (e.g., at least 5% of the total number of admins). This may imply setting an expiry date for the role or a voluntary request to lower-activity admins to renounce the role.
- Admins’ generation balance: the overall group of admins should be balanced in terms of the different generations in which they started editing; we suggest that the last generation occupies at least 10% at the end of a lustrum.
- Admins over active editors: The proportion of admins among active editors should be from 1% to 5% to guarantee that admins do not carry an excessive workload, since, in the end, they revise other editors’ edits.
- Number of admins: Any community should have a minimum of three admins, regardless of their size in active editors.
4.2.6. Global Participation
Meta-Wiki Active Editors
- Meta-wiki participation: As far as the targets, we see the number of editors from a Wikipedia language edition community active in Meta-wiki should be around 1% of the active editors. A much lower value would imply that the language edition community is not participating enough in the global movement. This should be calibrated on the size of the existing language community, for which we suggest a higher percentage, even if it can prove more challenging. Each community should have some user that act as ambassadors on Meta wiki.
Primary and Non-Primary Editors
- Primary language editors: we believe that the proportion of primary language editors among the active editors in a language community should be at least 55% to guarantee that there are dedicated editors whose main project is that Wikipedia language edition. A percentage higher than 95% might imply that the community is not attracting collaborators from other communities. The rationale for both percentages is that we see both 50% and 100% as extremes, and we suggest some margin around these values.
4.3. Validation and Affiliates’ Feedback
5.1. Main Results across Communities
5.2. Setting Growth-Based Goals (Affiliates and WMF)
5.3. Limitations of This Study and Future Steps
Interactive Dashboards Website
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
- Preece, J.; Maloney-Krichmar, D.; Abras, C. History of online communities. Encycl. Community 2003, 3, 86. [Google Scholar]
- Heckathorn, D.D. Collective action and group heterogeneity: Voluntary provision versus selective incentives. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1993, 58, 329–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marwell, G.; Oliver, P. The Critical Mass in Collective Action; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Prasarnphanich, P.; Wagner, C. Explaining the sustainability of digital ecosystems based on the wiki model through critical-mass theory. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2009, 58, 2065–2072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halfaker, A.; Geiger, R.S.; Morgan, J.T.; Riedl, J. The rise and decline of an open collaboration system: How Wikipedia’s reaction to popularity is causing its decline. Am. Behav. Sci. 2013, 57, 664–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Jemielniak, D. Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia; Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- TeBlunthuis, N.; Shaw, A.; Hill, B.M. Revisiting“ The rise and decline” in a population of peer production projects. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal, QC, Canada, 21–26 April 2018; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- McMahon, C.; Johnson, I.; Hecht, B. The substantial interdependence of Wikipedia and Google: A case study on the relationship between peer production communities and information technologies. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Montreal, QC, Canada, 15–18 May 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Miquel Ribé, M.; Vaidla, K.; Fort, F.; Torres, A. Estratègia del moviment Wikimedia 2030: Com un procés d’estratègia oberta inclusiva ha situat la gent al centre. BiD 2021, 2, 47. [Google Scholar]
- Flöck, F.; Laniado, D.; Stadthaus, F.; Acosta, M. Towards Better Visual Tools for Exploring Wikipedia Article Development—The Use Case of “Gamergate Controversy”. In Proceedings of the Ninth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Oxford, UK, 26–29 May 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Pentzold, C.; Weltevrede, E.; Mauri, M.; Laniado, D.; Kaltenbrunner, A.; Borra, E. Digging Wikipedia: The online encyclopedia as a digital cultural heritage gateway and site. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 2017, 10, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bao, P.; Hecht, B.; Carton, S.; Quaderi, M.; Horn, M.; Gergle, D. Omnipedia: Bridging the wikipedia language gap. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Austin, TX, USA, 5–10 May 2012; pp. 1075–1084. [Google Scholar]
- Miquel-Ribé, M.; Laniado, D. The Wikipedia Diversity Observatory: Helping communities to bridge content gaps through interactive interfaces. J. Int. Serv. Appl. 2021, 12, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suh, B.; Convertino, G.; Chi, E.H.; Pirolli, P. The singularity is not near: Slowing growth of Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration, Orlando, FL, USA, 25–27 October 2009; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Ortega Soto, J.F. Wikipedia: A Quantitative Analysis. Doctoral dissertation, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid. 2009. Available online: https://burjcdigital.urjc.es/bitstream/handle/10115/11239/thesis-jfelipe.pdf (accessed on 4 April 2022).
- Hill, B.M.; Shaw, A. Wikipedia and the End of Open Collaboration. Wikipedia 2020, 3, 20. [Google Scholar]
- Asatani, K.; Toriumi, F.; Ohashi, H. Rise and decline process of online communities: Modeling social balance of participants. In Proceedings of the Social Simulation Conference, Barcelona, Spain, 1–5 September 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Gorbatai, A.D. The Paradox of Novice Contributions to Collective Production: Evidence from Wikipedia. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1949327 (accessed on 10 February 2014).
- Butler, B.; Joyce, E.; Pike, J. Don’t look now, but we’ve created a bureaucracy: The nature and roles of policies and rules in wikipedia. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, NY, USA, 5–10 April 2008; pp. 1101–1110. [Google Scholar]
- Shaw, A.; Hill, B.M. Laboratories of oligarchy? How the iron law extends to peer production. J. Commun. 2014, 64, 215–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Konieczny, P. Governance, organization, and democracy on the Internet: The iron law and the evolution of Wikipedia. In Sociological Forum; Wiley Online Library: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009; Volume 24, pp. 162–192. [Google Scholar]
- Rijshouwer, E.; Uitermark, J.; de Koster, W. Wikipedia: A self-organizing bureaucracy. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2021, 33, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heaberlin, B.; DeDeo, S. The evolution of Wikipedia’s norm network. Future Internet 2016, 8, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Raitman, R.; Augar, N.; Zhou, W. Employing wikis for online collaboration in the e-learning environment: Case study. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Information Technology and Applications (ICITA’05), Sydney, Australia, 4–7 July 2005; Volume 2, pp. 142–146. [Google Scholar]
- Ebner, M.; Kickmeier-Rust, M.; HolZInGER, A. Utilizing Wiki-Systems in higher education classes: A chance for universal access? Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 2008, 7, 199–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gluza, W.; Turaj, I.; Meier, F. Wikipedia Edit-a-thons and Editor Experience: Lessons from a Participatory Observation. In Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Open Collaboration, Online, 15–17 September 2021; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Hargittai, E.; Shaw, A. Mind the skills gap: The role of Internet know-how and gender in differentiated contributions to Wikipedia. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2015, 18, 424–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cowan, B.R. Causal Effects of Wiki Site Design on Anxiety and Usability. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland. 2011. Available online: https://era.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/9703 (accessed on 4 April 2022).
- Halfaker, A.; Kittur, A.; Riedl, J. Don’t bite the newbies: How reverts affect the quantity and quality of Wikipedia work. In Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration, Mountain View, CA, USA, 3–5 October 2011; pp. 163–172. [Google Scholar]
- Morgan, J.T.; Bouterse, S.; Walls, H.; Stierch, S. Tea and sympathy: Crafting positive new user experiences on wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, San Antonio, CA, USA, 23–27 February 2013; pp. 839–848. [Google Scholar]
- Morgan, J.T.; Halfaker, A. Evaluating the Impact of the Wikipedia Teahouse on Newcomer Retention. In Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Open Collaboration, Paris, France, 19 April 2018; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Ducheneaut, N. Socialization in an open source software community: A socio-technical analysis. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 2005, 14, 323–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lehmann, J.; Lalmas, M.; Yom-Tov, E.; Dupret, G. Models of user engagement. In Proceedings of the International Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization, Montreal, QC, Canada, 16–20 July 2012; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2012; pp. 164–175. [Google Scholar]
- Halfaker, A.; Riedl, J. Bots and cyborgs: Wikipedia’s immune system. Computer 2012, 45, 79–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geiger, R.S. The lives of bots. arXiv 2018, arXiv:1810.09590. [Google Scholar]
- Zheng, L.; Albano, C.M.; Vora, N.M.; Mai, F.; Nickerson, J.V. The roles bots play in Wikipedia. Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact. 2019, 3, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Arazy, O.; Ortega, F.; Nov, O.; Yeo, L.; Balila, A. Functional roles and career paths in Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 14–18 March 2015; pp. 1092–1105. [Google Scholar]
- Kreider, C.; Kordzadeh, N. Request for Adminship (RFA) within Wikipedia: How Do User Contributions Instill Community Trust? SAIS 2015 Proc. 2015, 1, 4. [Google Scholar]
- Hale, S.A. Multilinguals and Wikipedia editing. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM Conference on Web Science, Bloomington, IN, USA, 23–26 June 2014; pp. 99–108. [Google Scholar]
- Petitjean, F.; Ketterlin, A.; Gançarski, P. A global averaging method for dynamic time warping, with applications to clustering. Pattern Recognit. 2011, 44, 678–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rabiee, F. Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2004, 63, 655–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albert, B.; Tullis, T. Measuring the User Experience: Collecting, Analyzing, and Presenting Usability Metrics; Newnes: Oxford, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Miquel Ribé, M. Identity-Based Motivation in Digital Engagement: The Influence of Community and Cultural Identity on Participation in Wikipedia. Ph.D. Thesis, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Kittur, A.; Chi, E.; Pendleton, B.A.; Suh, B.; Mytkowicz, T. Power of the few vs. wisdom of the crowd: Wikipedia and the rise of the bourgeoisie. World Wide Web 2007, 1, 19. [Google Scholar]
- Collier, B.; Bear, J. Conflict, confidence, or criticism: An empirical examination of the gender gap in Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Seattle, WA, USA, 11–15 February 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Iosub, D.; Laniado, D.; Castillo, C.; Fuster Morell, M.; Kaltenbrunner, A. Emotions under discussion: Gender, status and communication in online collaboration. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e104880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Neff, J.J.; Laniado, D.; Kappler, K.E.; Volkovich, Y.; Aragón, P.; Kaltenbrunner, A. Jointly they edit: Examining the impact of community identification on political interaction in wikipedia. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e60584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Miquel-Ribé, M.; Consonni, C.; Laniado, D. Wikipedia Editor Drop-Off: A Framework to Characterize Editors’ Inactivity. In Proceedings of the Wiki Workshop 2021 at The Web Conference 2021 (Wiki Workshop 2021), Online, 14 April 2021. [Google Scholar]
|Research Question||Vital Sign||Indicator||Summary of Findings||Target|
|How do Wikipedia communities retain new members over time?||Retention||Retention rate: percentage of new editors who edit at least once 60 days after their first edit.||The retention rate is declining in every community considered, regardless of size or growth pattern.||[T1]—Retention rate: at least 3% to ensure renewal among editors; desirable to reach 5–7%.|
|How stable is the composition of Wikipedia communities over time?||Stability||Stability: number of active editors by the number of months they have been active in a row.||More established communities are able to engage a larger share of their editors for a long period of time (one year or more), while smaller communities show more volatility.||[T2]—Fresh editors: 30–40% of editors who where not active in the previous month.|
|[T3]—Long-time editors: 33% of long-time editors (>12 months).|
|How balanced are Wikipedia communities in terms of including new members over time and maintaining the old ones?||Balance||Balance: number and percentage of very active editors by year and by generation (lustrum of the first edit).||General tendency to create an established group of very active editors from older generations of editors, that leaves more or less space to newer generations in different language editions.||[T4]—Last generation: A growing share of the last generation until occupying between 30–40% at the end of a lustrum.|
|[T5]—First generation: At least 5–15% from the first generation (typically 2001-2005).|
|How are Wikipedia communities renewing their technical editors and project specialists?||Special functions||Technical editors: number of very active editors in technical namespaces (i.e., editors who performed more than 100 edits in one month in namespaces Mediawiki and Templates), broken down by year and by generation.||General prominence of older generations, particularly the second generation (editors registered in 2006-2010). A community should not over-rely on older editors, and should attract technical editors from the younger generations.||[T6]—Very active technical editors: at least 20 users as a minimum number of very active technical editors.|
|[T7]–Very active technical editors from the last generation: at least 30% very active technical editors from the last generation.|
|Coordinators: number of very active editors in coordination namespaces (i.e., editors who performed more than 100 edits in one month in namespaces Wikipedia and Help), broken down by year and by generation.||Like for very active technical editors, remarkable dominance of older generations for this kind of specialized profile.||[T8]—Very active coordinators: The group of very active coordinators should always be larger than the number of very active technical editors.|
|[T9]—Very active coordinators proportion: there should be a minimum of 5-15% of the very active editors to guarantee there are common initiatives that involve everyone.|
|Research Question||Vital Sign||Indicator||Summary of Findings||Target|
|How are the Wikipedia communities granting admin user rights to new members?||Admins||Admins by year: number of admins by year of flag granted and by generation.||General strong predominance of older generations for this fundamental role, even more marked than for special functions. In some cases, administrator rights were mostly assigned in past years, and only to very few, or to no users, in recent years.||[T10]—New admins by year: there should be at least 5% of new admins every year.|
|Admins by lustrum: total number of active admins by generation at the current month.||[T11] – Admins’ generation balance: the last generation occupies at least 10% at the end of a lustrum.|
|Admins by lustrum: the second one is the total number of active admins by generation at the current month.||[T12]—Admins over active editors: The proportion of admins among active editors should be from 1% to 5% to avoid excessive workload.|
|[T13]—Number of admins: any community should have a minimum of 3 admins, regardless of their size in active editors.|
|How are Wikipedia language communities participating in global projects spaces (Meta-wiki)?||Global Participation||Meta-wiki participation: ratio between the number of active editors in Meta-wiki that have as primary a given language edition, divided by the number of active editors in that Wikipedia language edition during the same month.||The proportion of editors who edit Meta-wiki ranges between 0.5% and 10% of the active editors from each community. For large communities it tends to be around 1%.||[T14]—Meta-wiki participation: The proportion of editors from a Wikipedia language edition community active in Meta-wiki should be around 1% of the active editors.|
|What is the composition of Wikipedia language communities in terms of multilingual editors?||Primary language: distribution of the primary language edition of the editors contributing to a given language edition.||The percentage of primary editors ranges between 60% and 95%. The percentage of non-primary editors is usually higher when the language community is smaller and non-primary editors correspond to languages that are geographically or culturally close.||[T15]—Primary language editors: the proportion of primary language editors should be at least 55%, and not higher than 95%.|
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Miquel-Ribé, M.; Consonni, C.; Laniado, D. Community Vital Signs: Measuring Wikipedia Communities’ Sustainable Growth and Renewal. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4705. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084705
Miquel-Ribé M, Consonni C, Laniado D. Community Vital Signs: Measuring Wikipedia Communities’ Sustainable Growth and Renewal. Sustainability. 2022; 14(8):4705. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084705Chicago/Turabian Style
Miquel-Ribé, Marc, Cristian Consonni, and David Laniado. 2022. "Community Vital Signs: Measuring Wikipedia Communities’ Sustainable Growth and Renewal" Sustainability 14, no. 8: 4705. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084705