Re: [Wiki-research-l] How to quantifying "effort" or "time spent" put into articles?

[Stuart A. Yeates]

I suggest that you talk to editors who have got an article to
featured-article status about their estimates of the work involved
(commonly cited as 3-6 months full time work). If you then count their
edits on the article and divide one by the other...

cheers
stuart


--
...let us be heard from red core to black sky

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 12:45, Nate TeBlunthuis  wrote:
>
> Thanks everyone for sharing your ideas. I really appreciate you taking
> the time! This discussion raised a lot of useful points.
>
> I think that as a first approximation, an edit-sessions approach seems
> okay. I think it is reasonable for the kind of purposes I have in mind
> to ignore time spent incidental to an edit (but not directly spent
> editing) like walking to a building or reading an article before
> beginning to edit. Cases like adding references or images from commons
> seem potentially important. Something like what Isaac or Aaron suggested
> like using a model to better estimate the amount of time that different
> kinds of edit takes (potentially using task categories, links, images,
> text diff metrics, references as features) would be a good but
> higher-effort measurement approach. Ignoring obvious vandalism is
> obviously an important step.
>
> --
>
> Nate
>
>
> On 10/20/20 3:28 PM, Isaac Johnson wrote:
> > Thanks for raising this question Nate! Really interested in this
> > discussion. Another option to throw into the mix though it would require a
> > fair bit of work:
> >
> > The Growth team put together a taxonomy of tasks that editors do and their
> > perceived difficulty level:
> > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Growth/Personalized_first_day/Newcomer_tasks#/media/File:Newcomer_tasks_-_Difficulty_filters.png
> > I'm not sure how complete the taxonomy is, but you could:
> >
> > - come up with a complete-ish taxonomy of edit types (another option to
> > consider: https://github.com/diyiy/Wiki_Semantic_Intention)
> > - assign each edit type a general difficulty level and time estimate
> > (hopefully backed up with some empirical data from edit session data or
> > which user groups engage in a given type of edit though for all the 
> > reasons
> > mentioned by you and others, that can be really hard to calculate)
> > - build detectors for each type of edit (unfortunately this is going to
> > require parsing a lot of wikitext but hopefully you can simply do things
> > like just compare the count # of links, images, templates, etc. in the
> > previous revision and current revision with mwparserfromhell)
> > - classify each edit based on what changes it had to the difficulty
> > level and therefore estimated time/expertise involved.
> >
> > Alternatively, you could just count up # of links etc. for the current
> > version of the page and multiply each link etc. by estimated time to add.
> > This would be highly conservative though because it would miss all the
> > collaboration / updating / adjusting / etc. so it would be more of an
> > estimate of minimum time to build a page.
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 5:43 PM Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
> >
> >> Hello Nate,
> >>
> >> Thank you for your interesting question, and thank you for your paper
> >> with Shaw and Mako Hill 2018 on the rise and decline of populations.
> >>
> >> Your endeavour seems to be most difficult and hardly possible. My
> >> thinking would be the following: there are certain patterns behind an
> >> edit, or: editing activity. For example, imagine someone who reads an
> >> article and corrects some minor typos and linguistic issues on the
> >> going. How long is the article, how long may it take to read it? How
> >> long may it take to make those edits (or, one big edit)?
> >>
> >> On the one hand, you may ask editors or observe them to find out how
> >> much time they need for this kind of activity. On the other hand, you
> >> may try to find this pattern back in certain characteristics of the
> >> edit (edit of the whole page; small changes of letters at several
> >> locations of the text).
> >>
> >> It would be a philosophical question what is exactly part of the
> >> editing activity. If I read a whole article for my own purposes, as a
> >> reader, without intention to edit, and then I find a small error and
> >> quickly correct it - does that make my whole reading of the article a
> >> part of my editing activity? I would have read the article anyway.
> >>
> >> There would be many other patterns. E.g., someone adds a picture. How
> >> much time this takes, that depends on whether the editor has searched
> >> for it on Commons, or took the same one he found in a different
> >> language version. So, if the picture appears in other language
> >> versions, you assume that the editor needed 10 minutes to find it, and
> >> otherwise, that he needed only two minutes to find the picture on a
> >> different language version?
> >>
> >> A last example: On a meeting of administrators I remember an admin
> >> 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] How to quantifying "effort" or "time spent" put into articles?

[Nate TeBlunthuis]

Thanks everyone for sharing your ideas. I really appreciate you taking 
the time! This discussion raised a lot of useful points.


I think that as a first approximation, an edit-sessions approach seems 
okay. I think it is reasonable for the kind of purposes I have in mind 
to ignore time spent incidental to an edit (but not directly spent 
editing) like walking to a building or reading an article before 
beginning to edit. Cases like adding references or images from commons 
seem potentially important. Something like what Isaac or Aaron suggested 
like using a model to better estimate the amount of time that different 
kinds of edit takes (potentially using task categories, links, images, 
text diff metrics, references as features) would be a good but 
higher-effort measurement approach. Ignoring obvious vandalism is 
obviously an important step.


--

Nate


On 10/20/20 3:28 PM, Isaac Johnson wrote:

Thanks for raising this question Nate! Really interested in this
discussion. Another option to throw into the mix though it would require a
fair bit of work:

The Growth team put together a taxonomy of tasks that editors do and their
perceived difficulty level:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Growth/Personalized_first_day/Newcomer_tasks#/media/File:Newcomer_tasks_-_Difficulty_filters.png
I'm not sure how complete the taxonomy is, but you could:

- come up with a complete-ish taxonomy of edit types (another option to
consider: https://github.com/diyiy/Wiki_Semantic_Intention)
- assign each edit type a general difficulty level and time estimate
(hopefully backed up with some empirical data from edit session data or
which user groups engage in a given type of edit though for all the reasons
mentioned by you and others, that can be really hard to calculate)
- build detectors for each type of edit (unfortunately this is going to
require parsing a lot of wikitext but hopefully you can simply do things
like just compare the count # of links, images, templates, etc. in the
previous revision and current revision with mwparserfromhell)
- classify each edit based on what changes it had to the difficulty
level and therefore estimated time/expertise involved.

Alternatively, you could just count up # of links etc. for the current
version of the page and multiply each link etc. by estimated time to add.
This would be highly conservative though because it would miss all the
collaboration / updating / adjusting / etc. so it would be more of an
estimate of minimum time to build a page.

On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 5:43 PM Ziko van Dijk  wrote:


Hello Nate,

Thank you for your interesting question, and thank you for your paper
with Shaw and Mako Hill 2018 on the rise and decline of populations.

Your endeavour seems to be most difficult and hardly possible. My
thinking would be the following: there are certain patterns behind an
edit, or: editing activity. For example, imagine someone who reads an
article and corrects some minor typos and linguistic issues on the
going. How long is the article, how long may it take to read it? How
long may it take to make those edits (or, one big edit)?

On the one hand, you may ask editors or observe them to find out how
much time they need for this kind of activity. On the other hand, you
may try to find this pattern back in certain characteristics of the
edit (edit of the whole page; small changes of letters at several
locations of the text).

It would be a philosophical question what is exactly part of the
editing activity. If I read a whole article for my own purposes, as a
reader, without intention to edit, and then I find a small error and
quickly correct it - does that make my whole reading of the article a
part of my editing activity? I would have read the article anyway.

There would be many other patterns. E.g., someone adds a picture. How
much time this takes, that depends on whether the editor has searched
for it on Commons, or took the same one he found in a different
language version. So, if the picture appears in other language
versions, you assume that the editor needed 10 minutes to find it, and
otherwise, that he needed only two minutes to find the picture on a
different language version?

A last example: On a meeting of administrators I remember an admin
explaining that dealing with one vandalism report on the list of
incidents costs him for about half an hour. Maybe a useful starting
point for further considerations?

Good luck, and kind regards
Ziko










Am Di., 20. Okt. 2020 um 23:18 Uhr schrieb Su-Laine Brodsky
:

Further to Joan’s comment, there are some other ways to stratify edits:

- Whether an edit is vandalism, a vandalism revert, an “actual" change.

Vandal edits and reverts are both quick compared to good-faith additions
and changes. Heavily vandalized articles will have long edit histories,
even though sometimes not much effort was put into them.

- Whether the edit was made by a human or bot.

- Whether a 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] How to quantifying "effort" or "time spent" put into articles?

[Johan Jönsson]

Den tis 20 okt. 2020 kl 23:43 skrev Ziko van Dijk :

>
> There would be many other patterns. E.g., someone adds a picture. How
> much time this takes, that depends on whether the editor has searched
> for it on Commons, or took the same one he found in a different
> language version. So, if the picture appears in other language
> versions, you assume that the editor needed 10 minutes to find it, and
> otherwise, that he needed only two minutes to find the picture on a
> different language version?
>

Or took a long walk to the building – or got permission to attend an event
as a photographer – took the photos, went home, spent twenty minutes
editing this particular one and uploaded it themselves – is that part of
that one edit, that they've been working towards? But that would be less
common, of course.

//Johan Jönsson
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] How to quantifying "effort" or "time spent" put into articles?

[Isaac Johnson]

Thanks for raising this question Nate! Really interested in this
discussion. Another option to throw into the mix though it would require a
fair bit of work:

The Growth team put together a taxonomy of tasks that editors do and their
perceived difficulty level:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Growth/Personalized_first_day/Newcomer_tasks#/media/File:Newcomer_tasks_-_Difficulty_filters.png
I'm not sure how complete the taxonomy is, but you could:

   - come up with a complete-ish taxonomy of edit types (another option to
   consider: https://github.com/diyiy/Wiki_Semantic_Intention)
   - assign each edit type a general difficulty level and time estimate
   (hopefully backed up with some empirical data from edit session data or
   which user groups engage in a given type of edit though for all the reasons
   mentioned by you and others, that can be really hard to calculate)
   - build detectors for each type of edit (unfortunately this is going to
   require parsing a lot of wikitext but hopefully you can simply do things
   like just compare the count # of links, images, templates, etc. in the
   previous revision and current revision with mwparserfromhell)
   - classify each edit based on what changes it had to the difficulty
   level and therefore estimated time/expertise involved.

Alternatively, you could just count up # of links etc. for the current
version of the page and multiply each link etc. by estimated time to add.
This would be highly conservative though because it would miss all the
collaboration / updating / adjusting / etc. so it would be more of an
estimate of minimum time to build a page.

On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 5:43 PM Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Hello Nate,
>
> Thank you for your interesting question, and thank you for your paper
> with Shaw and Mako Hill 2018 on the rise and decline of populations.
>
> Your endeavour seems to be most difficult and hardly possible. My
> thinking would be the following: there are certain patterns behind an
> edit, or: editing activity. For example, imagine someone who reads an
> article and corrects some minor typos and linguistic issues on the
> going. How long is the article, how long may it take to read it? How
> long may it take to make those edits (or, one big edit)?
>
> On the one hand, you may ask editors or observe them to find out how
> much time they need for this kind of activity. On the other hand, you
> may try to find this pattern back in certain characteristics of the
> edit (edit of the whole page; small changes of letters at several
> locations of the text).
>
> It would be a philosophical question what is exactly part of the
> editing activity. If I read a whole article for my own purposes, as a
> reader, without intention to edit, and then I find a small error and
> quickly correct it - does that make my whole reading of the article a
> part of my editing activity? I would have read the article anyway.
>
> There would be many other patterns. E.g., someone adds a picture. How
> much time this takes, that depends on whether the editor has searched
> for it on Commons, or took the same one he found in a different
> language version. So, if the picture appears in other language
> versions, you assume that the editor needed 10 minutes to find it, and
> otherwise, that he needed only two minutes to find the picture on a
> different language version?
>
> A last example: On a meeting of administrators I remember an admin
> explaining that dealing with one vandalism report on the list of
> incidents costs him for about half an hour. Maybe a useful starting
> point for further considerations?
>
> Good luck, and kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Am Di., 20. Okt. 2020 um 23:18 Uhr schrieb Su-Laine Brodsky
> :
> >
> > Further to Joan’s comment, there are some other ways to stratify edits:
> >
> > - Whether an edit is vandalism, a vandalism revert, an “actual" change.
> Vandal edits and reverts are both quick compared to good-faith additions
> and changes. Heavily vandalized articles will have long edit histories,
> even though sometimes not much effort was put into them.
> >
> > - Whether the edit was made by a human or bot.
> >
> > - Whether a human edit was made with a tool such as AWB or HotCat. AWB
> in particular can be used to make very fast edits.
> >
> > Another thought is that if you’re trying to measure contributor effort,
> why not look at article Talk pages as well? For controversial articles, a
> large proportion of editor time is spent on discussion.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Su-Laine (longtime Wikipedia contributor)
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 20, 2020, at 12:37 PM, Johan Jönsson 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > A few comments from an editing perspective, in case anything here is
> useful:
> > >
> > > I think Levenshtein distance might be a useful concept here, given the
> > > indication that I've read through and made some sort of decision
> around a
> > > whole article or a significant part of an article – both for additions
> and
> > > subtractions.

Re: [Wiki-research-l] How to quantifying "effort" or "time spent" put into articles?

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello Nate,

Thank you for your interesting question, and thank you for your paper
with Shaw and Mako Hill 2018 on the rise and decline of populations.

Your endeavour seems to be most difficult and hardly possible. My
thinking would be the following: there are certain patterns behind an
edit, or: editing activity. For example, imagine someone who reads an
article and corrects some minor typos and linguistic issues on the
going. How long is the article, how long may it take to read it? How
long may it take to make those edits (or, one big edit)?

On the one hand, you may ask editors or observe them to find out how
much time they need for this kind of activity. On the other hand, you
may try to find this pattern back in certain characteristics of the
edit (edit of the whole page; small changes of letters at several
locations of the text).

It would be a philosophical question what is exactly part of the
editing activity. If I read a whole article for my own purposes, as a
reader, without intention to edit, and then I find a small error and
quickly correct it - does that make my whole reading of the article a
part of my editing activity? I would have read the article anyway.

There would be many other patterns. E.g., someone adds a picture. How
much time this takes, that depends on whether the editor has searched
for it on Commons, or took the same one he found in a different
language version. So, if the picture appears in other language
versions, you assume that the editor needed 10 minutes to find it, and
otherwise, that he needed only two minutes to find the picture on a
different language version?

A last example: On a meeting of administrators I remember an admin
explaining that dealing with one vandalism report on the list of
incidents costs him for about half an hour. Maybe a useful starting
point for further considerations?

Good luck, and kind regards
Ziko










Am Di., 20. Okt. 2020 um 23:18 Uhr schrieb Su-Laine Brodsky
:
>
> Further to Joan’s comment, there are some other ways to stratify edits:
>
> - Whether an edit is vandalism, a vandalism revert, an “actual" change. 
> Vandal edits and reverts are both quick compared to good-faith additions and 
> changes. Heavily vandalized articles will have long edit histories, even 
> though sometimes not much effort was put into them.
>
> - Whether the edit was made by a human or bot.
>
> - Whether a human edit was made with a tool such as AWB or HotCat. AWB in 
> particular can be used to make very fast edits.
>
> Another thought is that if you’re trying to measure contributor effort, why 
> not look at article Talk pages as well? For controversial articles, a large 
> proportion of editor time is spent on discussion.
>
> Cheers,
> Su-Laine (longtime Wikipedia contributor)
>
>
> > On Oct 20, 2020, at 12:37 PM, Johan Jönsson  wrote:
> >
> > A few comments from an editing perspective, in case anything here is useful:
> >
> > I think Levenshtein distance might be a useful concept here, given the
> > indication that I've read through and made some sort of decision around a
> > whole article or a significant part of an article – both for additions and
> > subtractions.
> >
> > When it comes to article content, the most important signifier of effort
> > spent on an edit beyond text length that comes to mind is whether a new ref
> > tag is added. If I'm referencing something, there's a fair chance that I've
> > not only identified a shortage or deficiency, but potentially spent time
> > both finding a source and reading through it to be able to reference it,
> > even if it results in a short sentence.
> >
> > In some languages, translations of other Wikipedia articles are common;
> > there might be a big difference between adding the same type of content
> > translated from another language version and writing it from scratch.
> >
> > //Johan Jönsson
> > --
> >
> > Den tis 20 okt. 2020 kl 20:32 skrev Nate E TeBlunthuis :
> >
> >> Greetings!
> >>
> >> Quantifying effort is obviously a fraught prospect, but Geiger and
> >> Halfaker [1] used edit sessions defined as consecutive edits by an editor
> >> without a gap longer than an hour to quantify the total number of labor
> >> hours spent on Wikipedia.  I'm familiar with other papers that use this
> >> approach to measure things like editor experience.
> >>
> >> I'm curious about the amount of effort put into each particular article.
> >> Edit sessions seem like a good approach, but there are some problems:
> >>
> >>  *   How much time does an edit session of length 1 take?
> >>  *   Should article edit sessions be consecutive in the same article?
> >>  *   What if someone makes an edit to related article in the middle of
> >> their session?
> >>
> >> I wonder what folks here think about alternatives for quantifying effort
> >> to an article like
> >>
> >>  1.  Number of wikitext characters added/removed
> >>  2.  Levenshtein (edit) distance (of characters or tokens)
> >>  3.  Simply the number of edits
> >>

Re: [Wiki-research-l] How to quantifying "effort" or "time spent" put into articles?

[Su-Laine Brodsky]

Further to Joan’s comment, there are some other ways to stratify edits:

- Whether an edit is vandalism, a vandalism revert, an “actual" change. Vandal 
edits and reverts are both quick compared to good-faith additions and changes. 
Heavily vandalized articles will have long edit histories, even though 
sometimes not much effort was put into them. 

- Whether the edit was made by a human or bot.

- Whether a human edit was made with a tool such as AWB or HotCat. AWB in 
particular can be used to make very fast edits.

Another thought is that if you’re trying to measure contributor effort, why not 
look at article Talk pages as well? For controversial articles, a large 
proportion of editor time is spent on discussion. 

Cheers,
Su-Laine (longtime Wikipedia contributor)


> On Oct 20, 2020, at 12:37 PM, Johan Jönsson  wrote:
> 
> A few comments from an editing perspective, in case anything here is useful:
> 
> I think Levenshtein distance might be a useful concept here, given the
> indication that I've read through and made some sort of decision around a
> whole article or a significant part of an article – both for additions and
> subtractions.
> 
> When it comes to article content, the most important signifier of effort
> spent on an edit beyond text length that comes to mind is whether a new ref
> tag is added. If I'm referencing something, there's a fair chance that I've
> not only identified a shortage or deficiency, but potentially spent time
> both finding a source and reading through it to be able to reference it,
> even if it results in a short sentence.
> 
> In some languages, translations of other Wikipedia articles are common;
> there might be a big difference between adding the same type of content
> translated from another language version and writing it from scratch.
> 
> //Johan Jönsson
> --
> 
> Den tis 20 okt. 2020 kl 20:32 skrev Nate E TeBlunthuis :
> 
>> Greetings!
>> 
>> Quantifying effort is obviously a fraught prospect, but Geiger and
>> Halfaker [1] used edit sessions defined as consecutive edits by an editor
>> without a gap longer than an hour to quantify the total number of labor
>> hours spent on Wikipedia.  I'm familiar with other papers that use this
>> approach to measure things like editor experience.
>> 
>> I'm curious about the amount of effort put into each particular article.
>> Edit sessions seem like a good approach, but there are some problems:
>> 
>>  *   How much time does an edit session of length 1 take?
>>  *   Should article edit sessions be consecutive in the same article?
>>  *   What if someone makes an edit to related article in the middle of
>> their session?
>> 
>> I wonder what folks here think about alternatives for quantifying effort
>> to an article like
>> 
>>  1.  Number of wikitext characters added/removed
>>  2.  Levenshtein (edit) distance (of characters or tokens)
>>  3.  Simply the number of edits
>> 
>> Thanks for your help!
>> 
>> [1] Geiger, R. S., & Halfaker, A. (2013). Using edit sessions to measure
>> participation in Wikipedia. Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer
>> Supported Cooperative Work, 861–870.
>> http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2441873
>> 
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] [job] Open-source supporting fact-checking

[Scott Hale]

Meedan, a global non-profit I work with, is hiring a software engineer. The
posting says frontend, but full-stack developers are also super welcome.
It's a distributed organization with a great mission and culture. I'm very
happy to answer questions if anyone's interested and very much appreciate
your help spreading the word.

Meedan builds Check , a web platform for
collaborative media annotation and fact-checking. The frontends include a
React web app, a cross-browser Web Extension and a sophisticated Slack bot,
all accessing our backend services via GraphQL and REST APIs.

https://meedan.com/jobs/software-engineer-frontend/

Best wishes,
Scott


-- 
Dr Scott A. Hale
http://scott.hale.us
computermacgy...@gmail.com
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] How to quantifying "effort" or "time spent" put into articles?

[Johan Jönsson]

A few comments from an editing perspective, in case anything here is useful:

I think Levenshtein distance might be a useful concept here, given the
indication that I've read through and made some sort of decision around a
whole article or a significant part of an article – both for additions and
subtractions.

When it comes to article content, the most important signifier of effort
spent on an edit beyond text length that comes to mind is whether a new ref
tag is added. If I'm referencing something, there's a fair chance that I've
not only identified a shortage or deficiency, but potentially spent time
both finding a source and reading through it to be able to reference it,
even if it results in a short sentence.

In some languages, translations of other Wikipedia articles are common;
there might be a big difference between adding the same type of content
translated from another language version and writing it from scratch.

//Johan Jönsson
--

Den tis 20 okt. 2020 kl 20:32 skrev Nate E TeBlunthuis :

> Greetings!
>
> Quantifying effort is obviously a fraught prospect, but Geiger and
> Halfaker [1] used edit sessions defined as consecutive edits by an editor
> without a gap longer than an hour to quantify the total number of labor
> hours spent on Wikipedia.  I'm familiar with other papers that use this
> approach to measure things like editor experience.
>
> I'm curious about the amount of effort put into each particular article.
> Edit sessions seem like a good approach, but there are some problems:
>
>   *   How much time does an edit session of length 1 take?
>   *   Should article edit sessions be consecutive in the same article?
>   *   What if someone makes an edit to related article in the middle of
> their session?
>
> I wonder what folks here think about alternatives for quantifying effort
> to an article like
>
>   1.  Number of wikitext characters added/removed
>   2.  Levenshtein (edit) distance (of characters or tokens)
>   3.  Simply the number of edits
>
> Thanks for your help!
>
> [1] Geiger, R. S., & Halfaker, A. (2013). Using edit sessions to measure
> participation in Wikipedia. Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer
> Supported Cooperative Work, 861–870.
> http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2441873
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] How to quantifying "effort" or "time spent" put into articles?

[Aaron Halfaker]

I imagine you could do a pretty good job of estimating the amount of time
an edit takes by modeling the various characteristics of an edit (chars,
edit distance, namespace, etc.) and comparing it to the inter-edit time in
multi-edit sessions.

Once you have a good estimator, you could then apply it to single edits.
That'd be really interesting.  I wonder what weirdness it might turn up.
E.g. maybe there are some types of edits that don't take a long time, but
they tend to correspond to long inter-edit times for some other reason.

-Aaron

On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 11:32 AM Nate E TeBlunthuis  wrote:

> Greetings!
>
> Quantifying effort is obviously a fraught prospect, but Geiger and
> Halfaker [1] used edit sessions defined as consecutive edits by an editor
> without a gap longer than an hour to quantify the total number of labor
> hours spent on Wikipedia.  I'm familiar with other papers that use this
> approach to measure things like editor experience.
>
> I'm curious about the amount of effort put into each particular article.
> Edit sessions seem like a good approach, but there are some problems:
>
>   *   How much time does an edit session of length 1 take?
>   *   Should article edit sessions be consecutive in the same article?
>   *   What if someone makes an edit to related article in the middle of
> their session?
>
> I wonder what folks here think about alternatives for quantifying effort
> to an article like
>
>   1.  Number of wikitext characters added/removed
>   2.  Levenshtein (edit) distance (of characters or tokens)
>   3.  Simply the number of edits
>
> Thanks for your help!
>
> [1] Geiger, R. S., & Halfaker, A. (2013). Using edit sessions to measure
> participation in Wikipedia. Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer
> Supported Cooperative Work, 861–870.
> http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2441873
>
> --
> Nathan TeBlunthuis
> PhD Candidate
> University of Washington
> Department of Communication
>
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] How to quantifying "effort" or "time spent" put into articles?

[Nate E TeBlunthuis]

Greetings!

Quantifying effort is obviously a fraught prospect, but Geiger and Halfaker [1] 
used edit sessions defined as consecutive edits by an editor without a gap 
longer than an hour to quantify the total number of labor hours spent on 
Wikipedia.  I'm familiar with other papers that use this approach to measure 
things like editor experience.

I'm curious about the amount of effort put into each particular article.  Edit 
sessions seem like a good approach, but there are some problems:

  *   How much time does an edit session of length 1 take?
  *   Should article edit sessions be consecutive in the same article?
  *   What if someone makes an edit to related article in the middle of their 
session?

I wonder what folks here think about alternatives for quantifying effort to an 
article like

  1.  Number of wikitext characters added/removed
  2.  Levenshtein (edit) distance (of characters or tokens)
  3.  Simply the number of edits

Thanks for your help!

[1] Geiger, R. S., & Halfaker, A. (2013). Using edit sessions to measure 
participation in Wikipedia. Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer 
Supported Cooperative Work, 861–870. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2441873

--
Nathan TeBlunthuis
PhD Candidate
University of Washington
Department of Communication


___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] The September 2020 issue of the Wikimedia Research Newsletter is out

[Mohammed Sadat Abdulai]

The September 2020 issue of the Wikimedia Research Newsletter is out:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2020/September

In this issue:

   1. "Uneven Coverage of Natural Disasters in Wikipedia: The Case of
   Floods"
   2. Briefly

*** 8 recent publications were covered or listed in this issue ***

Masssly and Tilman Bayer
---

Wikimedia Research Newsletter

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/
* Follow us on Twitter: @WikiResearch 
* Like us on Facebook: Facebook.com/WikiResearch/

* Receive this newsletter by mail: Research-newsletter Mailing List -
Wikimedia 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l