Jump to content

1% rule: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Sync tampered notice of move discussion on Talk:1% rule (Internet culture)
 
(26 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Hypothesis that more people will lurk in a virtual community than will participate}}
{{short description|Hypothesis that more people will lurk in a virtual community than will participate}}
{{for|the aviation medicine rule|1% rule (aviation medicine)}}
<noinclude>{{User:RMCD bot/subject notice|1=1% rule|2=Talk:1% rule (Internet culture)#Requested move 1 March 2022}}
</noinclude>[[File:1percentrule.svg|thumb|Pie chart showing the proportion of lurkers, contributors and creators under the 90–9–1 principle]]
[[File:1percentrule.svg|thumb|Pie chart showing the proportion of [[lurker]]s, contributors and creators under the 90–9–1 principle]]


In [[Internet culture]], the '''1% rule''' is a [[rule of thumb]] pertaining to participation in an [[internet community]], stating that only 1% of the users of a website add content, while the other 99% of the participants only [[Lurker|lurk]]. Variants include the ''1–9–90 rule'' (sometimes ''90–9–1 principle'' or the ''89:10:1 ratio''),<ref name="arthur"/> which states that in a collaborative website such as a [[wiki]], 90% of the participants of a community only consume content, 9% of the participants change or update content, and 1% of the participants add content.
In [[Internet culture]], the '''1% rule''' is a general [[rule of thumb]] pertaining to participation in an [[Internet community]], stating that only 1% of the users of a website actively create new content, while the other 99% of the participants only [[Lurker|lurk]]. Variants include the ''1–9–90 rule'' (sometimes ''90–9–1 principle'' or the ''89:10:1 ratio''),<ref name="arthur"/> which states that in a collaborative website such as a [[wiki]], 90% of the participants of a community only consume content, 9% of the participants change or update content, and 1% of the participants add content.


Similar rules are known in [[information science]]; for instance, the 80/20 rule known as the [[Pareto principle]] states that 20 percent of a group will produce 80 percent of the activity regardless of how the activity is defined.
Similar rules are known in [[information science]]; for instance, the 80/20 rule known as the [[Pareto principle]] states that 20 percent of a group will produce 80 percent of the activity, regardless of how the activity is defined.


==Definition==
==Definition and review==
According to the 1% rule, about 1% of Internet users are responsible for creating content, while 99% are merely consumers of that content. For example, for every person who posts on a forum, generally about 99 other people view that forum but do not post. The term was coined by authors and bloggers Ben McConnell and Jackie Huba,<ref name="1% rule">{{cite web|url=http://www.churchofthecustomer.com/blog/2006/05/charting_wiki_p.html|title=The 1% Rule: Charting citizen participation|last1=McConnell|first1=Ben|first2=Jackie |last2=Huba|date=May 3, 2006|work=Church of the Customer Blog|accessdate=2010-07-10|archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20100511081141/http://www.churchofthecustomer.com/blog/2006/05/charting_wiki_p.html|archivedate= 11 May 2010 <!--Added by DASHBot-->}}</ref> although earlier references to the same concept<ref name="100-10-1"/> did not use this name.
According to the 1% rule, about 1% of Internet users create content, while 99% are just consumers of that content. For example, for every person who posts on a forum, generally about 99 other people view that forum but do not post. The term was coined by authors and bloggers Ben McConnell and Jackie Huba,<ref name="1% rule">{{cite web|url=http://www.churchofthecustomer.com/blog/2006/05/charting_wiki_p.html|title=The 1% Rule: Charting citizen participation|last1=McConnell|first1=Ben|first2=Jackie |last2=Huba|date=May 3, 2006|work=Church of the Customer Blog|accessdate=2010-07-10|archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20100511081141/http://www.churchofthecustomer.com/blog/2006/05/charting_wiki_p.html|archivedate= 11 May 2010 <!--Added by DASHBot-->}}</ref> although earlier references to the same concept<ref name="100-10-1"/> did not use this name.


The terms ''lurk'' and ''lurking'', in reference to online activity, are used to refer to online observation without engaging others in the community.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.techopedia.com/definition/8156/lurking|title=What is Lurking? – Definition from Techopedia|website=Techopedia.com|language=en|access-date=2019-11-05}}</ref>
The terms ''[[Lurker|lurk]]'' and ''lurking'', in reference to online activity, are used to refer to online observation without engaging others in the Internet community.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.techopedia.com/definition/8156/lurking|title=What is Lurking? – Definition from Techopedia|website=Techopedia.com|language=en|access-date=2019-11-05}}</ref>


A 2005 study of radical Jihadist forums found 87% of users had never posted on the forums, 13% had posted at least once, 5% had posted 50 or more times, and only 1% had posted 500 or more times.<ref name="1% doctrine">{{cite journal |last=Awan |first=A. N. |year=2007 |url=https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/22726/ssoar-eurjcultstud-2007-3-awan-virtual_jihadist_media.pdf?sequence=1 |title=Virtual Jihadist media: Function, legitimacy, and radicalising efficacy |journal=European Journal of Cultural Studies |volume=10 |issue=3 |pages=389–408 |doi=10.1177/1367549407079713}}</ref>
A 2007 study of [[Extremism|radical]] [[Jihadism|jihadist]] Internet forums found 87% of users had never posted on the forums, 13% had posted at least once, 5% had posted 50 or more times, and only 1% had posted 500 or more times.<ref name="1% doctrine">{{cite journal |last=Awan |first=A. N. |year=2007 |url=https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/22726/ssoar-eurjcultstud-2007-3-awan-virtual_jihadist_media.pdf?sequence=1 |title=Virtual Jihadist media: Function, legitimacy, and radicalising efficacy |journal=European Journal of Cultural Studies |volume=10 |issue=3 |pages=389–408 |doi=10.1177/1367549407079713|s2cid=140454270 }}</ref> A 2013 study found that 91% of [[Musician|music artists]] were undiscovered on social media, 8.2% were developing or mid-sized, and 1.1% were mainstream or mega-sized.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2014/01/17/nbs/|title=91 Percent of All Artists Are Completely Undiscovered|date=June 19, 2024|website=Digital Music News|first1=Nina|last1=Ulloa}}</ref>


A 2014 peer-reviewed paper entitled "The 1% Rule in Four Digital Health Social Networks: An Observational Study" empirically examined the 1% rule in health oriented online forums. The paper concluded that the 1% rule was consistent across the four support groups, with a handful of "Superusers" generating the vast majority of content.<ref>{{cite journal |last=van Mierlo |first=T. |url=https://www.jmir.org/2014/2/e33/ |title=The 1% Rule in Four Digital Health Social Networks: An Observational Study |journal=Journal of Medical Internet Research |year=2014 |volume=16 |issue=2 |page=e33 |doi=10.2196/jmir.2966 |pmid=24496109 |pmc=3939180}}</ref> A study later that year, from a separate group of researchers, replicated the 2014 van Mierlo study in an online forum for depression.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Carron-Arthur|first1=B|last2=Cunningham|first2=JA|last3=Griffiths|first3=KM|title=Describing the distribution of engagement in an Internet support group by post frequency: A comparison of the 90–9–1 Principle and Zipf's Law|journal=Internet Interventions|date=2014|volume=1|issue=4|pages=165–168|doi=10.1016/j.invent.2014.09.003|doi-access=free}}</ref> Results indicated that the distribution frequency of the 1% rule fit followed [[Zipf's Law]], which is a specific type of a [[power law]].
A 2014 peer-reviewed paper entitled "The 1% Rule in Four Digital Health Social Networks: An Observational Study" empirically examined the 1% rule in health-oriented online forums. The paper concluded that the 1% rule was consistent across the four support groups, with a handful of "Superusers" generating the vast majority of content.<ref>{{cite journal |last=van Mierlo |first=T. |url=https://www.jmir.org/2014/2/e33/ |title=The 1% Rule in Four Digital Health Social Networks: An Observational Study |journal=Journal of Medical Internet Research |year=2014 |volume=16 |issue=2 |page=e33 |doi=10.2196/jmir.2966 |pmid=24496109 |pmc=3939180 |doi-access=free }}</ref> A study later that year, from a separate group of researchers, replicated the 2014 van Mierlo study in an online forum for depression.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Carron-Arthur|first1=B|last2=Cunningham|first2=JA|last3=Griffiths|first3=KM|title=Describing the distribution of engagement in an Internet support group by post frequency: A comparison of the 90–9–1 Principle and Zipf's Law|journal=Internet Interventions|date=2014|volume=1|issue=4|pages=165–168|doi=10.1016/j.invent.2014.09.003|doi-access=free|hdl=1885/22422|hdl-access=free}}</ref> Results indicated that the distribution frequency of the 1% rule fit followed [[Zipf's Law]], which is a specific type of [[power law]].


The "90–9–1" version of this rule states that for websites where users can both create and edit content, 1% of people create content, 9% edit or modify that content, and 90% view the content without contributing.
The "90–9–1" version of this rule states that for websites where users can both create and edit content, 1% of people create content, 9% edit or modify that content, and 90% view the content without contributing. However, the actual percentage is likely to vary depending upon the subject. For example, if a forum requires content submissions as a condition of entry, the percentage of people who participate will probably be significantly higher than one percent, but the content producers will still be a minority of users. This is validated in a study conducted by Michael Wu, who uses economics techniques to analyze the participation inequality across hundreds of communities segmented by industry, audience type, and community focus.<ref name="The Economics of 90–9–1"/>


⚫
The 1% rule is often misunderstood to apply to the Internet in general, but it applies more specifically to any given Internet community. It is for this reason that one can see evidence for the 1% principle on many websites, but aggregated together one can see a different distribution. This latter distribution is still unknown and likely to shift, but various researchers and pundits have speculated on how to characterize the sum total of participation. Research in late 2012 suggested that only 23% of the population (rather than 90 percent) could properly be classified as lurkers, while 17% of the population could be classified as intense contributors of content.<ref name="Participant choice">{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2012/05/bbc_online_briefing_spring_201_1.html|title=BBC Online Briefing Spring 2012: The Participation Choice}}</ref> Several years prior, results were reported on a sample of students from Chicago where 60 percent of the sample created content in some form.<ref name="Participation divide">{{cite journal |last1=Hargittai |first1=E |last2=Walejko |first2=G. |year=2008 |doi=10.1080/13691180801946150 |title=The Participation Divide: Content creation and sharing in the digital age |journal=Information, Communication & Society |volume=11 |issue=2 |pages=389–408|s2cid=4650775 }}</ref>
The actual percentage is likely to vary depending upon the subject matter. For example, if a forum requires content submissions as a condition of entry, the percentage of people who participate will probably be significantly higher than one percent, but the content producers will still be a minority of users. This is validated in a study conducted by Michael Wu, who uses economics techniques to analyze the participation inequality across hundreds of communities segmented by industry, audience type, and community focus.<ref name="The Economics of 90–9–1"/>

⚫
The 1% rule is often misunderstood to apply to the Internet in general, but it applies more specifically to any given Internet community. It is for this reason that one can see evidence for the 1% principle on many websites, but aggregated together one can see a different distribution. This latter distribution is still unknown and likely to shift, but various researchers and pundits have speculated on how to characterize the sum total of participation. Research in late 2012 suggested that only 23% of the population (rather than 90 percent) could properly be classified as lurkers, while 17% of the population could be classified as intense contributors of content.<ref name="Participant choice">{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2012/05/bbc_online_briefing_spring_201_1.html|title=BBC Online Briefing Spring 2012: The Participation Choice}}</ref> Several years prior, results were reported on a sample of students from Chicago where 60 percent of the sample created content in some form.<ref name="Participation divide">{{cite journal |last1=Hargittai |first1=E |last2=Walejko |first2=G. |year=2008 |doi=10.1080/13691180801946150 |title=The Participation Divide: Content creation and sharing in the digital age |journal=Information, Communication and Society |volume=11 |issue=2 |pages=389–408}}</ref>


==Participation inequality==
==Participation inequality==
Line 28: Line 26:
==See also==
==See also==
* [[Digital citizen]]
* [[Digital citizen]]
⚫
* [[Internet culture]]
* [[List of Internet phenomena]]
⚫
* [[Lotka's law]]
* [[Netocracy]]
* [[Netocracy]]
⚫
* [[Sturgeon's law]]
* [[Silent majority]]
* [[Silent majority]]
* [[Lotka's law]]
* [[Sturgeon's law]]
* [[User-generated content]]


== References ==
== References ==
Line 38: Line 39:
<ref name="100-10-1">{{cite web|url=http://blog.elatable.com/2006/02/creators-synthesizers-and-consumers.html|title=Creators, Synthesizers, and Consumers|last=Horowitz|first=Bradley|date=February 16, 2006|work=Elatable|publisher=[[Blogger (service)|Blogger]]|accessdate=2010-07-10}}</ref>
<ref name="100-10-1">{{cite web|url=http://blog.elatable.com/2006/02/creators-synthesizers-and-consumers.html|title=Creators, Synthesizers, and Consumers|last=Horowitz|first=Bradley|date=February 16, 2006|work=Elatable|publisher=[[Blogger (service)|Blogger]]|accessdate=2010-07-10}}</ref>


<ref name="Edit wear and read wear">{{cite book|last1=Hill|first1=William C.|first2=James D. |last2=Hollan |first3=Dave |last3=Wroblewski |first4=Tim |last4=McCandless|year=1992|title=Edit wear and read wear|journal=Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems|publisher=[[Association for Computing Machinery|ACM]]|pages=3–9|doi=10.1145/142750.142751|isbn=978-0-89791-513-7}}</ref>
<ref name="Edit wear and read wear">{{cite book|last1=Hill|first1=William C.|first2=James D. |last2=Hollan |first3=Dave |last3=Wroblewski |first4=Tim |last4=McCandless|title=Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '92 |chapter=Edit wear and read wear |year=1992|publisher=[[Association for Computing Machinery|ACM]]|pages=3–9|doi=10.1145/142750.142751|isbn=978-0-89791-513-7|s2cid=15416019 }}</ref>


<ref name="The Economics of 90–9–1">{{cite web|url=http://lithosphere.lithium.com/t5/Building-Community-the-Platform/bg-p/MikeW/label-name/90-9-1|title=The Economics of 90–9–1: The Gini Coefficient (with Cross Sectional Analyses)|last=Wu|first=Michael|date=April 1, 2010|work=Lithosphere Community|publisher=Lithium Technologies, Inc.|accessdate=2010-07-10}}</ref>
<ref name="The Economics of 90–9–1">{{cite web|url=http://lithosphere.lithium.com/t5/Building-Community-the-Platform/bg-p/MikeW/label-name/90-9-1|title=The Economics of 90–9–1: The Gini Coefficient (with Cross Sectional Analyses)|last=Wu|first=Michael|date=April 1, 2010|work=Lithosphere Community|publisher=Lithium Technologies, Inc.|accessdate=2010-07-10}}</ref>


<ref name="arthur">{{cite web |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2006/jul/20/guardianweeklytechnologysection2 |title=What is the 1% rule? |first=Charles |last=Arthur |publisher=The Guardian |date=20 July 2006}}</ref>
<ref name="arthur">{{cite web |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2006/jul/20/guardianweeklytechnologysection2 |title=What is the 1% rule? |first=Charles |last=Arthur |work=The Guardian |date=20 July 2006}}</ref>


<ref name="participation_inequality">[http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9708b.html "Community is Dead; Long Live Mega-Collaboration", Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox for August 15, 1997]</ref>}}
<ref name="participation_inequality">{{cite web |last1=Nielsen |first1=Jakob |title=Community is Dead; Long Live Mega-Collaboration (Alertbox) |url=http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9708b.html |website=useit.com |access-date=9 June 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/19980128113201/http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9708b.html |archive-date=28 Jan 1998 |date=15 Aug 1997}}</ref>

}}


== External links ==
== External links ==
* [https://www.nngroup.com/articles/participation-inequality/ The 90-9-1 Rule for Participation Inequality in Social Media and Online Communities] by [[Jakob Nielsen (usability consultant)|Jakob Nielsen]], October 8, 2006.
* [https://www.nngroup.com/articles/participation-inequality/ The 90-9-1 Rule for Participation Inequality in Social Media and Online Communities] by [[Jakob Nielsen (usability consultant)|Jakob Nielsen]], October 8, 2006.
* [http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1823959,00.html What is the 1% rule?] by Charles Arthur in ''[[The Guardian]]'', July 20, 2006.
* [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2006/jul/20/guardianweeklytechnologysection2 What is the 1% rule?] by Charles Arthur in ''[[The Guardian]]'', July 20, 2006.
* [http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/blogspotting/archives/2006/05/the_1_rule.html The 1% Rule] by Heather Green in ''[[BusinessWeek]]'', May 10, 2006
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20060523162308/http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/blogspotting/archives/2006/05/the_1_rule.html The 1% Rule] by Heather Green in ''[[BusinessWeek]]'', May 10, 2006
* [http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/clay_shirky_on_institutions_versus_collaboration.html Institutions vs. Collaboration] by [[Clay Shirky]], July 2005, Video at 06:00 and 12:42
* [https://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_institutions_vs_collaboration Institutions vs. Collaboration] by [[Clay Shirky]], July 2005, Video at 06:00 and 12:42


{{DEFAULTSORT:1 Percent Rule}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:1 Percent Rule}}
⚫
[[Category:Internet culture]]
⚫
[[Category:Technology neologisms]]
[[Category:1990s neologisms]]
[[Category:1990s neologisms]]
⚫
[[Category:Web 2.0]]
⚫
[[Category:Rules of thumb]]
⚫
[[Category:Tails of probability distributions]]
⚫
[[Category:Statistical principles]]
[[Category:Adages]]
[[Category:Adages]]
[[Category:Internet culture]]
[[Category:Internet forum terminology]]
[[Category:Internet forum terminology]]
⚫
[[Category:Rules of thumb]]
⚫
[[Category:Statistical principles]]
⚫
[[Category:Tails of probability distributions]]
⚫
[[Category:Technology neologisms]]
⚫
[[Category:Web 2.0 neologisms]]

Latest revision as of 00:52, 30 June 2024

For the aviation medicine rule, see 1% rule (aviation medicine).
Pie chart showing the proportion of lurkers, contributors and creators under the 90–9–1 principle

In Internet culture, the 1% rule is a general rule of thumb pertaining to participation in an Internet community, stating that only 1% of the users of a website actively create new content, while the other 99% of the participants only lurk. Variants include the 1–9–90 rule (sometimes 90–9–1 principle or the 89:10:1 ratio),[1] which states that in a collaborative website such as a wiki, 90% of the participants of a community only consume content, 9% of the participants change or update content, and 1% of the participants add content.

Similar rules are known in information science; for instance, the 80/20 rule known as the Pareto principle states that 20 percent of a group will produce 80 percent of the activity, regardless of how the activity is defined.

Definition and review

[edit]

According to the 1% rule, about 1% of Internet users create content, while 99% are just consumers of that content. For example, for every person who posts on a forum, generally about 99 other people view that forum but do not post. The term was coined by authors and bloggers Ben McConnell and Jackie Huba,[2] although earlier references to the same concept[3] did not use this name.

The terms lurk and lurking, in reference to online activity, are used to refer to online observation without engaging others in the Internet community.[4]

A 2007 study of radical jihadist Internet forums found 87% of users had never posted on the forums, 13% had posted at least once, 5% had posted 50 or more times, and only 1% had posted 500 or more times.[5] A 2013 study found that 91% of music artists were undiscovered on social media, 8.2% were developing or mid-sized, and 1.1% were mainstream or mega-sized.[6]

A 2014 peer-reviewed paper entitled "The 1% Rule in Four Digital Health Social Networks: An Observational Study" empirically examined the 1% rule in health-oriented online forums. The paper concluded that the 1% rule was consistent across the four support groups, with a handful of "Superusers" generating the vast majority of content.[7] A study later that year, from a separate group of researchers, replicated the 2014 van Mierlo study in an online forum for depression.[8] Results indicated that the distribution frequency of the 1% rule fit followed Zipf's Law, which is a specific type of power law.

The "90–9–1" version of this rule states that for websites where users can both create and edit content, 1% of people create content, 9% edit or modify that content, and 90% view the content without contributing. However, the actual percentage is likely to vary depending upon the subject. For example, if a forum requires content submissions as a condition of entry, the percentage of people who participate will probably be significantly higher than one percent, but the content producers will still be a minority of users. This is validated in a study conducted by Michael Wu, who uses economics techniques to analyze the participation inequality across hundreds of communities segmented by industry, audience type, and community focus.[9]

The 1% rule is often misunderstood to apply to the Internet in general, but it applies more specifically to any given Internet community. It is for this reason that one can see evidence for the 1% principle on many websites, but aggregated together one can see a different distribution. This latter distribution is still unknown and likely to shift, but various researchers and pundits have speculated on how to characterize the sum total of participation. Research in late 2012 suggested that only 23% of the population (rather than 90 percent) could properly be classified as lurkers, while 17% of the population could be classified as intense contributors of content.[10] Several years prior, results were reported on a sample of students from Chicago where 60 percent of the sample created content in some form.[11]

Participation inequality

[edit]
Main article: Participation inequality

A similar concept was introduced by Will Hill of AT&T Laboratories[12] and later cited by Jakob Nielsen; this was the earliest known reference to the term "participation inequality" in an online context.[13] The term regained public attention in 2006 when it was used in a strictly quantitative context within a blog entry on the topic of marketing.[2]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Arthur, Charles (20 July 2006). "What is the 1% rule?". The Guardian.
  2. ^ a b McConnell, Ben; Huba, Jackie (May 3, 2006). "The 1% Rule: Charting citizen participation". Church of the Customer Blog. Archived from the original on 11 May 2010. Retrieved 2010-07-10.
  3. ^ Horowitz, Bradley (February 16, 2006). "Creators, Synthesizers, and Consumers". Elatable. Blogger. Retrieved 2010-07-10.
  4. ^ "What is Lurking? – Definition from Techopedia". Techopedia.com. Retrieved 2019-11-05.
  5. ^ Awan, A. N. (2007). "Virtual Jihadist media: Function, legitimacy, and radicalising efficacy" (PDF). European Journal of Cultural Studies. 10 (3): 389–408. doi:10.1177/1367549407079713. S2CID 140454270.
  6. ^ Ulloa, Nina (June 19, 2024). "91 Percent of All Artists Are Completely Undiscovered". Digital Music News.
  7. ^ van Mierlo, T. (2014). "The 1% Rule in Four Digital Health Social Networks: An Observational Study". Journal of Medical Internet Research. 16 (2): e33. doi:10.2196/jmir.2966. PMC 3939180. PMID 24496109.
  8. ^ Carron-Arthur, B; Cunningham, JA; Griffiths, KM (2014). "Describing the distribution of engagement in an Internet support group by post frequency: A comparison of the 90–9–1 Principle and Zipf's Law". Internet Interventions. 1 (4): 165–168. doi:10.1016/j.invent.2014.09.003. hdl:1885/22422.
  9. ^ Wu, Michael (April 1, 2010). "The Economics of 90–9–1: The Gini Coefficient (with Cross Sectional Analyses)". Lithosphere Community. Lithium Technologies, Inc. Retrieved 2010-07-10.
  10. ^ "BBC Online Briefing Spring 2012: The Participation Choice".
  11. ^ Hargittai, E; Walejko, G. (2008). "The Participation Divide: Content creation and sharing in the digital age". Information, Communication & Society. 11 (2): 389–408. doi:10.1080/13691180801946150. S2CID 4650775.
  12. ^ Hill, William C.; Hollan, James D.; Wroblewski, Dave; McCandless, Tim (1992). "Edit wear and read wear". Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '92. ACM. pp. 3–9. doi:10.1145/142750.142751. ISBN 978-0-89791-513-7. S2CID 15416019.
  13. ^ Nielsen, Jakob (15 Aug 1997). "Community is Dead; Long Live Mega-Collaboration (Alertbox)". useit.com. Archived from the original on 28 Jan 1998. Retrieved 9 June 2022.
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1%25_rule&oldid=1231742396"