How to track wiki startups?
May 13, 2009 11:55 PM Subscribe
Where might I find evidence that there was a surge of wiki startups circa 2005, which has since tapered off?
This is just a hunch I have, but if it's true, I'd like to use the argument in a job application I'm preparing.
My dream would be to find an annual list of "100 hot startups" from Business 2.0 or some such magazine. I could then count how many of those were wiki-related. But I haven't found such a list.
Does anyone know of something like that? Can anyone suggest an alternative methodology?
This is just a hunch I have, but if it's true, I'd like to use the argument in a job application I'm preparing.
My dream would be to find an annual list of "100 hot startups" from Business 2.0 or some such magazine. I could then count how many of those were wiki-related. But I haven't found such a list.
Does anyone know of something like that? Can anyone suggest an alternative methodology?
I would probably brute-force this by looking at Wikipedia's List of wiki software, picking out the ones that qualify as startups, and arranging them in order of launch date.
posted by dreamyshade at 1:51 AM on May 14, 2009
posted by dreamyshade at 1:51 AM on May 14, 2009
Are you in a university and do you have access to Gartner Group reports? They publish information on these topics - in particular hype cycles.
posted by a womble is an active kind of sloth at 5:43 PM on May 14, 2009
posted by a womble is an active kind of sloth at 5:43 PM on May 14, 2009
Where might I find evidence that there was a surge of wiki startups circa 2005, which has since tapered off?
This isn't how one does research. You look for the most accurate and complete raw data you can find, and then see what trends exist in that data—you don't go looking for data that supports an already-decided conclusion.
My dream would be to find an annual list of "100 hot startups" from Business 2.0 or some such magazine.
This is not accurate or complete raw data. Like any "Top 10" list, these lists are completely arbitrary—compiled on editorial whim, and written to sell magazines, not to provide a meaningful representative sample.
I realize that you're just trying to get a job—not produce a rigorous academic report on the subject—but if you actually know what you're talking about, you shouldn't have to fabricate dubious assertions to get the job.
posted by ixohoxi at 9:04 AM on May 11, 2010
This isn't how one does research. You look for the most accurate and complete raw data you can find, and then see what trends exist in that data—you don't go looking for data that supports an already-decided conclusion.
My dream would be to find an annual list of "100 hot startups" from Business 2.0 or some such magazine.
This is not accurate or complete raw data. Like any "Top 10" list, these lists are completely arbitrary—compiled on editorial whim, and written to sell magazines, not to provide a meaningful representative sample.
I realize that you're just trying to get a job—not produce a rigorous academic report on the subject—but if you actually know what you're talking about, you shouldn't have to fabricate dubious assertions to get the job.
posted by ixohoxi at 9:04 AM on May 11, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by mhh5 at 1:43 AM on May 14, 2009