On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Gregory Kohs <[email protected]> wrote:
> While the time and effort that went into Robert Rohde's analysis is > certainly extensive, the outcomes are based on so many flawed assumptions > about the nature of vandalism and vandalism reversion, publicize at one's > peril the key "finding" of a 0.4% vandalism rate. > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_McCain&diff=169808394&oldid=169720853 > 11 hours > Reverted with no tags. > The best part about that little exchange is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_McCain&diff=next&oldid=169906715 wherein a revert was made returning the vandalism, followed by another when the editor noticed his error. I don't think Robert made any firm conclusions on the meaning of his data; he notes all the caveats that others have since emphasized, and admits to likely underestimating vandalism. I read the 0.4% as representing the approximate number of articles containing vandalism in an English Wikipedia snapshot; that is quite different than the amount of time specific articles stay in a "vandalized" state. Given the difficulty of accurately analyzing this sort of data, no firm conclusions can be drawn; but certainly its more informative than a Wikipedia Review analysis of a relatively small group of articles in a specific topic area. Nathan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
