Wikipediocracy

I'm looking for some information about kids usage of Wikipedia (as readers, not contributors) in comparison to adult usage. I found this demographic information, and some others, but they focus on adult usage.

I am interested in how kids use compares with other media, especially YouTube. Judging from my own kids, they don't use the site at all.

To be honest, children should not use Wikipedia, not even the Simple English Wikipedia. Why? Even the Simple English Wikipedia is full of NSFS (not safe for school) stuff.

Here is a paper that at least distinguishes usage differences between households with children and those without children.

Thanks Greg, that's got some very interesting information in it:

36% of searches to Wikipedia from Search engines are for Popular culture topics. Include Sport (5%) and books (5%), contemporary issues (5%) and some portion of computing (5%) then there's well over 50% that is popular culture. Also sports is underrepresented on Wikipedia.

While the common presumption is that Wikipedia is a source of information, the high proportion of popular culture queries suggests that for many, Wikipedia could be considered a source of leisure. This highlights the need for a term to distinguish between information search where finding the information is the goal and information search that is an end in itself. I suggest the term leisure search to indicate when the searching for information is itself a leisure activity. This is very different from infotainment, which is the imparting of information through the medium of entertainment. With infotainment, what is important is that the information is imparted to the viewer or listener.

Further, this 2010 research shows that the 2-17 year olds are not that much different from their adult counterparts. We can surmise that in 2014, Wikipedia is probably a top 15 (if not top 10) website among youth.

...and children on Wikipedia tend to gravitate towards "overrepresented content."

Read or edit? Because I could think of a few people who act like 13 year olds themselves, up to and including admins.

Konveyor Belt wrote:Read or edit? Because I could think of a few people who act like 13 year olds themselves, up to and including admins.

I believe there have been one or two admins who were really aged 13.

thekohser wrote:Further, this 2010 research shows that the 2-17 year olds are not that much different from their adult counterparts. We can surmise that in 2014, Wikipedia is probably a top 15 (if not top 10) website among youth.

How can you tell that from the data? Wikipedia is not in the top 10 for 2-17 year olds, there doesn't appear to by any other data there.

sparkzilla wrote:

thekohser wrote:Further, this 2010 research shows that the 2-17 year olds are not that much different from their adult counterparts. We can surmise that in 2014, Wikipedia is probably a top 15 (if not top 10) website among youth.

How can you tell that from the data? Wikipedia is not in the top 10 for 2-17 year olds, there doesn't appear to by any other data there.

sur·mise
verb
sərˈmīz/
1. suppose that something is true without having evidence to confirm it

I think your surmizin' could very well be way off base, that's why I'm looking for sources. The interesting point in the quoted text above was that a large amount of WP readers people use Wikipedia as a leisure activity. I don't see kids using the site that way at all. There's maybe some use for school projects.

sparkzilla wrote:I think your surmizin' could very well be way off base, that's why I'm looking for sources. The interesting point in the quoted text above was that a large amount of WP readers people use Wikipedia as a leisure activity. I don't see kids using the site that way at all. There's maybe some use for school projects.

I think you're deluding yourself. I have watched how kids use the Internet, and not just my own child. It's rather the same as adults. "Who sings that song that goes, 'Cause it goes on and on and on'?" They go to Google and type in "lyrics it goes on and on and on". They see Taio Cruz somewhere down the list, and then they type in "Taio Cruz", then they go to his website (#1 result) or to Wikipedia's biography (#2 result). "Yeah, that's the guy! I love that song!" And then they go get a yogurt from the fridge.

That's not what my kids do (age 12 and 10). They don't want to read about Taio Cruze. Why would they? They want to listen to his songs/see his videos, or see him perform. The maximum reading they want is to read lyrics. I have never seen them go to Wikipedia for anything except for rare school projects (and even then they are told explicitly not to trust the information they get there).

However the plural of anecdote is not data, so if anyone can find more stats it will certainly help our understanding.

At least children don't get to read about the puppeteer behind Elmo (Kevin Clash (T-H-L)).

The problem with finding data about children's use of online media is that there aren't many legitimate studies in this area, because any legitimate study would have to be set up very carefully to comply with child protection laws, probably CASRO and AAPOR standards, and not to mention surmounting the "creep out factor" with parents.

For example, I'm somewhat familiar with this study by Pew Research, because my former employer used to conduct much of the Pew Center's similar Hispanic-oriented research. You'll note (page 13+) that the study targeted only 12-17 year olds -- not younger. Call center operations are hesitant to conduct surveys with respondents ages 2 to 11, for quite the obvious reasons (parental consent, the ability of the respondent to comprehend questions and give accurate answers, screening interviewing staff with background checks, training interviewers for work with children, call monitoring by supervisors, etc.).

Age 12-18 is the important range anyway. One of the reasons I am asking this is that my site has recently built up a lot of embedded YouTube content. If kids like YouTube (verified) but don't like Wikipedia (not verified) then my suspicions are correct: there is hole in the market where video-based content can be used to give a better overview of a topic than Wikipedia. If those kids find value in that video content, then they will never get to the point where they see value in Wikipedia's textbook-like presentation.

And why is that, do you think? Do children see value in that the content is being read? Humor? Accompanying pictures and videos? Because two of those three things are things Wikipedia could achieve if they wanted to, or that another wiki could achieve.

I think you may have missed out a word on your question so I'm not sure if this is the right answer, but perhaps it's because most kids are accessing the Internet through devices that emphasize visual communication, and that are not set up for typing or reading longer pieces of text: iPods, iPads and other tablets. For example, my daughter would rather use Instagram than Twitter because she would have to type more on Twitter, or at least organize her thoughts around words. Instead she just takes a picture. She doesn't use email, she video chats. She'd rather watch a YouTube than read. My kids' humor is based around visual memes. I'm sure this has broader implications for the way they will consume information as they grow up.

Technically, Wikipedia or any other wiki can easily add video but policy considerations are a far greater obstacle. Most videos are primary sources and there are issues of undue weight, reliable sources, relevance, to name a few off the top of my head.

Most online media is visual.

Having audio would be a great boost. There are some Wikipedia articles that are read by a Wikipedian (though it can get obsolete rather quickly).

There are many auditory learners whose needs are often ignored, as well as those who have vision impairment.

Websites such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Reddit are very poorly designed for those who have vision problems.

After all, Kurzweil has two different screen reader software: Kurzweil 1000 for those with visual impairment and Kurzweil 3000 for those with learning disabilities. Screen readers have significant difficulties reading txtspk, as well as being unable to read most images.

Never forget children who learn better by having words spoken to them.

I expect young people typically spend more time on Facebook, gaming sites and such things than older people.

Poetlister wrote:I expect young people typically spend more time on Facebook, gaming sites and such things than older people.

Facebook itself is a gaming site. Where else can you find popular pay-to-win browser games?

Do you think Wikipedia should add in addictive browser games?

Johnny Au wrote:Facebook itself is a gaming site. Where else can you find popular pay-to-win browser games?

Yes, but they've done a bang-up job of concealing those games and anything resembling conventional old-fashioned "gambling", in the US.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19162971
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/0 ... 52734.html
http://www.realmoneygamblingapps.com/facebook/

EricBarbour wrote:

Johnny Au wrote:Facebook itself is a gaming site. Where else can you find popular pay-to-win browser games?

Yes, but they've done a bang-up job of concealing those games and anything resembling conventional old-fashioned "gambling", in the US.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19162971
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/0 ... 52734.html
http://www.realmoneygamblingapps.com/facebook/

Facebook not only condones gambling, but actually has casino games that involve betting real money. Facebook makes [insert major Las Vegas/Atlantic City/Monaco/Macau casino operator here] look impoverished in comparison.

Even worse, these casino games are open to those 13 years old, unlike other online gambling websites.

Just a note to kind of get back on topic, but it's well know that kids don't use Facebook.

sparkzilla wrote:Just a note to kind of get back on topic, but it's well know that kids don't use Facebook.

Obligatory strip:

The comic strip is Pajama Diaries (T-H-L).

Johnny Au wrote:Facebook not only condones gambling, but actually has casino games that involve betting real money.

Not in the United States, albeit.

sparkzilla wrote:Just a note to kind of get back on topic, but it's well know that kids don't use Facebook.

Demographics data - Facebook UK



US data

Don't forget how many children lie about their age on Facebook, in order to not be restricted by content filters, etc.

Johnny Au wrote:Do you think Wikipedia should add in addictive browser games?

Many people here would argue that Wikipedia is an addictive browser game.

Poetlister wrote:

Johnny Au wrote:Do you think Wikipedia should add in addictive browser games?

Many people here would argue that Wikipedia is an addictive browser game.

True. Here is proof: WP:MMORPG (T-H-L)

'fanalyzer.co.uk' wrote:

Er...

a) I'm pretty sure that 25% only takes up a quarter of a circle.
b) 25.5 + 24.5 + 17.5 + 11.1 + 5.4 + 3.1 + 13 = 100.1.

Hex wrote:

'fanalyzer.co.uk' wrote:

Er...

a) I'm pretty sure that 25% only takes up a quarter of a circle.
b) 25.5 + 24.5 + 17.5 + 11.1 + 5.4 + 3.1 + 13 = 100.1.

Heh. WMF need to grab that charting code and embed it as a widget in Visual Editor. Call it Moon-Pie or something. Instant, eye-catching, incorrect graphics at the click of a mouse. Winner.

Especially since pie charts are evil

Pie charts are evil. Treemap (T-H-L) is better.

Hex wrote:b) 25.5 + 24.5 + 17.5 + 11.1 + 5.4 + 3.1 + 13 = 100.1.

Why is that funny? Obviously, the percentages are rounded to one decimal place. If you do that, it's quite likely that they won't add up to exactly 100%. I won't bore people with a worked example unless there's a demand for one.

Poetlister wrote:

Hex wrote:b) 25.5 + 24.5 + 17.5 + 11.1 + 5.4 + 3.1 + 13 = 100.1.

Why is that funny? Obviously, the percentages are rounded to one decimal place. If you do that, it's quite likely that they won't add up to exactly 100%. I won't bore people with a worked example unless there's a demand for one.

Dear Poetlister: The 25.5 and 24.5 wedges take up about 70% of the pie rather than only 50% of the pie.

eagle wrote:

Poetlister wrote:

Hex wrote:b) 25.5 + 24.5 + 17.5 + 11.1 + 5.4 + 3.1 + 13 = 100.1.

Why is that funny? Obviously, the percentages are rounded to one decimal place. If you do that, it's quite likely that they won't add up to exactly 100%. I won't bore people with a worked example unless there's a demand for one.

Dear Poetlister: The 25.5 and 24.5 wedges take up about 70% of the pie rather than only 50% of the pie.

I think he knows that. That's why, I'd be pretty sure, he didn't comment on (a), just on (b)...
I noticed that the addition was almost certainly just a rounding 'error' too, but the slice proportions were so funny that I forgot/didn't bother to mention it. Kinda "meh" to me, at the time.
Poetlister, I think, likes accuracy where maths/stats discussions are involved, so I can see why he'd point that out.

Poetlister wrote:

Hex wrote:b) 25.5 + 24.5 + 17.5 + 11.1 + 5.4 + 3.1 + 13 = 100.1.

Why is that funny? Obviously, the percentages are rounded to one decimal place. If you do that, it's quite likely that they won't add up to exactly 100%. I won't bore people with a worked example unless there's a demand for one.

This is well known in statistics. There were good papers by Fred Mosteller & two coauthors and later by Persi Diaconis (and I think by David Freedman) on the distribution of rounded percentages.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:This is well known in statistics. There were good papers by Fred Mosteller & two coauthors and later by Persi Diaconis (and I think by David Freedman) on the distribution of rounded percentages.

Jack Kiefer and Jacob Wolfowitz are rolling over in their graves....