Re: [Wiki-research-l] how to query WIkipedia for a list of people who died in a given year

who died in a particular year you are better off looking at genealogy sites, and for 1941 military war grave sites. Tens of millions of people died that year and I doubt that we have even 0.1% of them. Hope that helps WereSpielChequers 2011/12/23 Jérémie Roquet arkano...@gmail.com Hi Alek

Re: [Wiki-research-l] how to query WIkipedia for a list of people who died in a given year

Categorisation is done manually, completeness varies from project to project and by topic area in the project. On the English language wikipedia we probably do have most of our novelists categorised as such. Deaths are a very different matter as many of our articles never pick up on the subject's

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Wikimedia-l] User retention statistics?

. WereSpielChequers On 19 April 2012 13:19, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote: This thread is a good candidate for wiki-research-l. Forwarding... 2012/4/18 Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru My message is inspired by discussion in this thread ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Fwd: Re: Experimental study of informal rewards in peer production

I'm glad to see that you didn't hand out undeserved barnstars, but there should be ways to identify and reward other groups. The simplest would be to look at other deciles, classify a sample of editors into ones that deserved a barnstar and ones that didn't, and then do an A/B test amongst the

Re: [Wiki-research-l] long in tooth.

more up-to-date than the average. WereSpielChequers On 2 May 2012 01:30, Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com wrote: On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Richard Jensen rjen...@uic.edu wrote: I am looking at the edit history of a number of major articles on historical topics (in the English

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Fwd: Re: Experimental study of informal rewards in peer production

This may be a cultural thing, but some people value symbolic prizes over cash ones. Here in the UK the most prestigious quiz show has only one prize per series - a cut glass bowl. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastermind_%28TV_series%29 Other shows may make you rich, but they don't have the same

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Are there any stats on activity of editors compared to the population?

I'm not sure that we have exactly what your asking for. For example we have the figure of 4,058,477 but that is for registered accounts on the English Wikipedia that have made at least one edit to an article. Different language versions of Wikipedia are also available, but of course registered

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Are there any stats on activity of editors compared to the population?

To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat. --Józef Pilsudski On 5/10/2012 4:49 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote: I'm not sure that we have exactly what your asking for. For example we have the figure of 4,058,477 but that is for registered accounts

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Are there any stats on activity of editors compared to the population?

, 2012, at 10:57 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote: Hi Piotr, You might make the assumption that the difference between 4 million and 16 million is largely editors who never get out of userspace, my experience is that such users are relatively rare, or at least won't dominate that 12 million. I'm

Re: [Wiki-research-l] the gulf between Wikipedia and Academe

Hi Richard, Apart from Featured Article work, I suspect that a very large proportion of our referencing is driven by Google search and latterly Google Books. There have been a few schemes to give the more active editors accounts with various reference sources - some Highbeam accounts were

Re: [Wiki-research-l] - solutions re academe Wiki

Hi Richard, you queried in a previous posting whether relations between Academia and Wikipedians were better in the UK. But I suspect that no-one is truly in a position to answer that. In both the US and the UK the situation will be complex, some Academics are Wikipedians, some Academics judge us

Re: [Wiki-research-l] open letter to researchers

Even if we weren't in a recession, money is not an unlimited resource. The fair comparison is not between those in the class who pass and those who fail to get the research grant; But between those who applied for the class and those who applied for the grant. WSC On 22 May 2012 20:45, Joe

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia

by ARBCOM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active_sanctions#General_sanctions TTFN WereSpielChequers On 25 June 2012 08:26, Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com wrote: ** ** ** ** ** Thank you for sharing your paper. I found it very interesting that there are good metrics

Re: [Wiki-research-l] More accurate revert detection in Wikipedia, alternative to MD5 identical revision method

, just one section. WereSpielChequers On 27 June 2012 18:05, Floeck, Fabian (AIFB) fabian.flo...@kit.edu wrote: For those of you who are interested in reverts: I just presented our paper on accurate revert detection at the ACM Hypertext and Social Media conference 2012, showing a significant

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wisdom of the crowd vs. wisdom of the experts and insiders

The General Notability Guideline is our friend here. Because we require articles to be verifiable that particular scenario doesn't apply - we frequently have people try and add articles and content in situations as unverifiable as the one the NY Times details. But we reject such content. Where I

Re: [Wiki-research-l] RCom and the Subject Recruitment Approvals Group

The current system is not ideal, but I would suggest we need a few more active participants rather than to subdivide a fairly quiet team. A while ago I did the second review at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Women_and_Wikipedia:_Contributions_in_a_Collaborative_Online_Spaceand am

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia's response to 2012 Aurora shooting

** ** ** ** ** ** On Jul 21, 2012, at 5:06 PM, WereSpielChequers wrote: It is currently semiprotected, there were IP edits when it was first created. But according to the logs it was fully protected for a while due to IP vandalism. However the edit history only shows it going to semi

Re: [Wiki-research-l] New tool to help find topics for editing

You might want to ask Suggest Bot users to try it out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SUGGESTBOT My suspicion would be that more people will be interested on articles related to topics they cover than ones in sources they can read. But both approaches may have their users, and the

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki history of one article on War of 1812

Hi Richard, Interesting read, I noticed a few things, though its possible that some may simply be that you are writing in American English. The article itself runs 14,000 words - suggest The article itself runs to 14,000 words That perspective is not of much concern inside Wikipedia, for it is

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [pre-print] Value production in a collaborativeenvironment

It may well be surprising to people in North America and especially the USA that North America provides only half the edits to EN wikipedia, especially as it did start in the US. But editing rates here in the UK are significantly higher than in the US, and that helps make up for the population

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki history of one article on War of 1812: rjensen responds

. But as with credentials there are problems with half measures. Most people will recognise WereSpielChequers as an obvious pseudonym, but we have had people edit under pseudonyms that appear to be real names, including some of our most disruptive editors. Perhaps that would make a good topic

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [pre-print] Value production in acollaborativeenvironment

-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of * WereSpielChequers *Sent:* Saturday, 8 September 2012 12:47 AM *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] [pre-print] Value production

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Minor stats on Wikipedia

Which language version of Wikipedia are you interested in? If is English then column B in http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm gives you new editors by month up to September - just tot up the most recent twelve to get a figure as at the start of October. However I'd add a word of

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Editor retention and meetups?

I've been attending London Meetups for over three years, and anecdotally I'd say there was a high correlation between repeat or even regular attendance at meetups and editor retention. Of course it is possible there are some editors who spot us, leave the pub and stop editing. I also think

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Editor retention and meetups?

I met some of the Georgian editors last time I was in Tbilisi. They seem to have a very tight community, there aren't many of them but that means they are few enough that they can all work together on their topic of the month . Which couldn't be more different from the London meetups where some of

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Modeling Wikipedia admin elections using multidimensional behavioral social networks

Both hypotheses don't really apply to the English language Wikipedia. Hypothesis A assumes that people vote for candidates who they are familiar with. There is some truth in that, and it is true of small tightly knit communities such as the Georgian Wikipedia. But in larger and or less tightly

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Research:Anatomy of English Wikipedia Did You Know traffic

Hi Laura and Kerry, One point to remember when comparing views of DYKs with other processes such as GAs is that DYKs get a slot on the mainpage. In that sense they are best compared to in the news items and the Featured Article of the Day. Though I'm pretty sure they don't individually get as

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Readable characters vs. size in bytes of articles

*** --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 Residual standard error: 2722 on 1998 degrees of freedom Multiple R-squared: 0.9053, Adjusted R-squared: 0.9053 F-statistic: 1.91e+04 on 1 and 1998 DF, p-value: 2.2e-16 On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, WereSpielChequers

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Readable characters vs. size in bytes of articles

the difference visually. -Aaron 1. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bytes.content_length.scatter.correlation.enwiki.png On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 6:04 AM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks both of you, I suspect that you two are using very different rules to define

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Readable characters vs. size in bytes of articles

Hi Fabian, I can honestly say I had never seen an article like Timeline of architectural styles 1000–present But even with that one and removing everything I could interpret as hidden or code generated I wound up with a lot more than 95 bytes: 6000BC–1000AD • 1000–1750 • 1750–1900 1900–Present

Re: [Wiki-research-l] How to collect all the admin-specific edits for a subset of Wp admins

Hi Jerome, Just a random note of caution, there are also admin actions such as closing RFCs altering userrights and protecting and unprotecting pages. So if you discover that some of your 120 are inactive you might want to check if they are active in those areas - most of us are relatively

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Existitng Research on Article Quality Heuristics?

Re other dimensions or heuristics: Very few articles are rated as Featured, and not that many as Good, if you are going to use that rating systemhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/AssessmentI'd suggest also including the lower levels, and indeed whether an article

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Existitng Research on Article Quality Heuristics?

...@fanhistory.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 9:53 AM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: Re other dimensions or heuristics: Very few articles are rated as Featured, and not that many as Good, if you are going to use that rating systemhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Polling the watcher's of a page. Possible?

How many watchlisters a page has is a sensitive issue, we've already had one incident where a researcher acquired a list of unwatched pages for a vandalism experiment. However anyone who watches a page will also have that pages talkpage on their watchlist, so while you can't directly contact

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Polling the watcher's of a page. Possible?

...@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com *Sent:* Tuesday, December 31, 2013 4:31 AM *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] Polling the watcher's of a page. Possible? How many watchlisters a page has is a sensitive issue

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Kill the bots

If your bot is only running automated reports in its own userspace then it doesn't need a bot flag. But it probably wont be a very active bot so may not be a problem for your stats On the English language wikipedia you are going to be fairly close if you exclude all accounts which currently have

Re: [Wiki-research-l] What works for increasing editor engagement?

When my watch list went over 13,000 I changed my preferences so I only add things to it that I want on it, and like Kerry started to pare things back. At first i was just unwatching a trickle of articles, I would look at edits on my watch list by unfamiliar editors, revert the vandalism and

Re: [Wiki-research-l] FW: What works for increasing editorengagement?

use for a while; then it is passed on to the next person. Not sure I can help you with London editathons. But I do have a couple of edit training days coming up in Oakey, Queensland in a few weeks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakey,_Queensland Kerry From: WereSpielChequers

Re: [Wiki-research-l] FW: What works for increasing editor engagement?

We have had endless discussions about this in the new page patrol community. Basically there is a divide between those who think it important to communicate with people as quickly as possible so they have a chance to fix things before they log off and people such as myself who think that this

Re: [Wiki-research-l] FW: What works for increasing editor engagement?

On 26 Sep 2014, at 09:56, Scott Hale computermacgy...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 1:46 PM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: Attn Luca and Scott There are some things best avoided as going against community expectations. I would be happy to see flagged

Re: [Wiki-research-l] FW: What works for increasing editorengagement?

that bots are good. They not only increase the number of readers but also the number of editors.. BIG GRIN Thanks, GerardM [1] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/09/wikipedia-to-bot-or-not-to-bot-ii.html On 26 September 2014 14:31, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Tool to find poorly written articles

And just to add to the complexity of James' comments; there are some people who think that a general interest encyclopaedia should be written for a general audience. So articles with long sentences should be improved by rewriting into more but shorter sentences, On 24 October 2014 19:44, James

Re: [Wiki-research-l] commentary on Wikipedia's community behaviour (Aaron gets a quote)

We have problems, I don't dispute that. But ugly and bitter as 4chan? That has to be an exaggeration. Regards Jonathan Cardy On 13 Dec 2014, at 01:03, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote: I certainly hope you're right Sydney. What a horrible mess. On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 5:53 PM,

Re: [Wiki-research-l] types of research Re: a cautious note on genderstats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

This might appear to some to be getting a little off topic for this list, but if you are beginning to think that of this thread I would plead for a little indulgence, and for people to approach this thread from the angle of how can we form research projects around this. Like many people I

Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

but don't yet have Wikipedias for and the languages for which we don't even have the fonts to display them. best, Claudia On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 7:41 AM, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote: Hi WereSpielChequers, Kerry, Aaron and all, WereSpielChequers wrote: the community is more abrasive

Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

of gay to straight members is changing over time. Regards Jonathan Cardy On 18 Feb 2015, at 11:23, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote: Hi Jonathan Cardy and all, (see below for some software issues) I agree with your argument, WereSpielChequers/ Jonathan Cardy, and I would like to hear more

Re: [Wiki-research-l] preelminary results from the Wikipedia Gender Inequality Index project - comments welcome

I have spent quite a bit of time at new page patrol over the years. My suspicion is that many if not most of the people who create articles on newly signed pop stars and actors are from their management agency rather than fans, especially if they seem too early in their career to have fans.

Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

In 2011 the project was only ten years old, four more years is time for big changes to have occurred. Changes we know something about include the repercussions of the transition from manual vandal fighting to predominately automated vandalism rejection. This may have had more subtle

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Fwd: Traffic to the portal from Zero providers

When a reader comes to Wikipedia from the web we can detect their IP address and that usually geolocates them to a country. More often than not that then tells you the dominant language of that country. If we were to default to official or dominant languages then I predict endless arguments as

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Grant Proposal: Request for Feedback (Response to Aaron Shaw)

Dear Christina, 1 are you defining your super editors by total or recent edits? Whilst we have pretty good editor retention amongst high edit count editors, even amongst those with over a 100,000 edits there are inactive and semi active editors. 2 how are you going to ensure that talkpage

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Community health (retitled thread)

Yes, but may I also point out that one of our biggest problems on EN wiki is that even good faith newbies will often have their edits reverted. If you add uncited facts to a page you are now much more likely to have your edit reverted than to have someone add citation needed so I would suggest

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Aaron Swartz Hypothesis on WikipediaAuthorship

Dear Kerry, Though the vast majority of my edits are precisely the sort of minor housekeeping edits that you describe, I agree with almost all that you say. But would make three little observations. 1 the solution to the edit conflict problem is to fix the software so we have fewer edit

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Aidez à améliorer l'exhaustivité de Wikipédia en français

If I may make one suggestion, have a look at people's language preferences in the wikis concerned. My assumption is that if you know two languages well enough to translate between them you are unlikely to have opted for a different language for system messages. I have edits in lots of different

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Has the recent increase in English wikipedia's core community gone beyond a statistical blip?

community gone beyond a statistical blip? It looks like about 10% of highly active Enwiki editors have used VE in the past month (across all namespaces): http://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/4795 On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:35 AM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Has the recent increase in English wikipedia's core community gone beyond a statistical blip?

:35 AM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: On a very non-scientific measure of how few editors currently use V/E, I took some snapshots of the most recent 500 mainspace edits yesterday and was getting circa 1% tagged as visual editor, I've just run two sample

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Has the recent increase in English wikipedia's core community gone beyond a statistical blip?

and look for evidence of that mechanism. See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:HHVM_newcomer_engagement_experiment On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:49 AM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: Most of those editors will have done 33 edits or less using V/E, and some

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Has the recent increase in English wikipedia's core community gone beyond a statistical blip?

: WereSpielChequers, 15/08/2015 15:12: With 8% more editors contributing over 100 edits in June 2015 than in June 2014 https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm, we have now had six consecutive months where this particular metric of the core community is looking positive. I'm not sure I

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Has the recent increase in English wikipedia's core community gone beyond a statistical blip?

wrote: WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com writes: Could you be more specific re In general I'm not sure the 100+ count is among the most reliable. What in particular do you think is unreliable about that metric? The main thing I have questions about with that metric is whether

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Visual Editor experiment might have a problem ...

Hi Kerry, there is an experiment going on that randomly opts half if new users into V/E and leaves half using the classic editor. That should account for why one of your newbies had been opted in but not the other. Captcha when adding citations is a longstanding problem, we need Captcha on

[Wiki-research-l] Has the recent increase in English wikipedia's core community gone beyond a statistical blip?

Hi, With 8% more editors contributing over 100 edits in June 2015 than in June 2014 https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm, we have now had six consecutive months where this particular metric of the core community is looking positive. One or two months could easily be a statistical

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Has the recent increase in English wikipedia's core community gone beyond a statistical blip?

by year of original signup. Kerry *From:* wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of * WereSpielChequers *Sent:* Saturday, 15 August 2015 11:12 PM *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Editor Activity Analysis Graphs

projects. Regards Jonathan / WereSpielChequers On 22 Jul 2015, at 18:23, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Aaron, others can build on this. Would it be possible to include adding links to this page in the standard procedure for WMF-funded projects (grants, research, tech tools

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Editor Activity Analysis Graphs

No. There is a wiki project that looks at this and many chapters, as well as I suspect many adhoc things that individual editors do. I know of enough such initiatives to know that there is no single complete list of editor retention initiatives. Regards Jonathan On 19 Jul 2015, at 15:03,

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Editor Activity Analysis Graphs

to the fall. - I have not looked specifically at (No of edits in first session after registration) - It was [1] that got me working on the graphs :-) @WereSpielChequers - Please send me a screenshot I'll try to fix it for you. - If you know the dates when they were introduced we

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Editor Activity Analysis Graphs

a hub for this kind of work. Aaron, do you know? Thanks, Pine On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 2:13 PM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','werespielchequ...@gmail.com'); wrote: No. There is a wiki project that looks at this and many chapters, as well

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Reinforcing or incentivizing desired user behavior

> >> As much as I like the barnstar system, it's highly subjective and >> inconsistent. I'd like to see a more systematic approach. Perhaps this >> could be combined with some of Aaron's work about edit quality. >> >> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 2:52 AM, WereSpielCheque

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Reinforcing or incentivizing desired user behavior

I thought if we had a "primary" badge or KPI system it was the content focussed ones and especially those related to Featured articles. Editcountitis is seen by many as a bit of a joke. But there many others including articles created and length of service. I do like the idea of celebrating

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Improved reference handling in VisualEditor, highlighted in this week's Tech News

Hi Pine, This would be a good news story for the GLAM community and I suspect education as well. Is there a signpost article I can post on a couple of GLAM Facebook groups? Regards Jonathan > On 1 Sep 2015, at 01:35, Pine W wrote: > > This is cool for the reference

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Spambots and HTTPS

As you say I doubt many spammers would get into the 100 edit a month league before being blocked. Of course a lot of rollbackers will be in the stats, and if there had been a drop in spam then some of the spam fighters might drop below 100 edits a month. But since the big announcement today about

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Verifying claims about ENWP project size

I'm pretty sure that English Wikipedia is the largest English language encyclopaedia, but there are some humongous ones in China. Baidu Baike with almost 12.5 million articles is way bigger than any one language version of Wikipedia and Baike.com formerly Hudong is about a million bigger

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Quality issues

My experience is that pretty much all Wikimedians care about quality, though some have different, even diametrically opposed views as to what quality means and which things are cosmetic or crucial. My experience of the sadly dormant death anomaly project

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Community policing, New Page Patrol, Articles for Creation, and editor retention

I suspect some reports, "unanswered newbie queries on wikiproject talkpages" and "Wikiprojects with no watchlisters who are currently active experienced editors" would probably be worthwhile. WereSpielChequers On 28 January 2016 at 23:05, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wro

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Gender bias in GitHub (but not entirely what you expect)

Hi Kerry, good point. I've often heard the FA crowd say that the featured article process has a higher proportion of women than is normal on Wikipedia. From my own experience there they are probably right. Regards Jonathan > On 19 Feb 2016, at 23:45, Kerry Raymond

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [WikimediaMobile] Mobile Wikipedia, Commons, Wikidata, and Pokémon

RichFarmbrough has been helping me out with lists of articles that have a UK geocode but no image. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rich_Farmbrough/temp138 I've been testing image adding as a newbie exercise. Due to the Geograph the UK is much better covered on Commons than most other places,

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Time Between edits - difference between RevisionID and {{NUMBEROFEDITS}}

available on WikiStats at > https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesDatabaseEdits.htm etc. > > Edit and revert trends charts tend to be more useful: > https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotsPngEditHistoryTop.htm > > WereSpielChequers, 25/01/2017 16:10: > >> One area that perh

[Wiki-research-l] Time Between edits - difference between RevisionID and {{NUMBEROFEDITS}}

One of our longest running sets of stats on Wikipedia is the time between ten million edits - we now have stats for this over a fifteen year period. After emailing User:Katalaveno and getting their agreement I have moved https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Katalaveno/TBE=no to

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Thinking big: scaling up Wikimedia's contributor population by two orders of magnitude

We already have hundreds of millions of users. A large proportion of people who use the internet will use Wikipedia in a given month, they use it by reading bits of it. Finding out what the barriers are for the thousands of millions who don't use Wikipdia would be useful. No doubt there are some

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Analytics] Identifying bots and bot edit decline

On the English Wikipedia you can start with the current bots which should all be in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_Wikipedia_bots There are also former bots in the category https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits/Unflagged_bots but we are

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Editors: research on transitions, learning over time, leaving

Dear Jan, It's a fascinating topic and one that interests me as well. But you have to be careful with your assumptions, our data is almost always based on user accounts, but we'd like to think we are looking at people. Some of whom will have different accounts over time. Some of the involvement

Re: [Wiki-research-l] ¿Model to automatically classify if one user is bot or not?

Aside from the sensitivities of this, and yes if there wasn't any doubt calling an editor a bot is not something one should do lightly, it isn't an easy thing to either define or identify. Doing bot edits from a non bot account is a big deal on Wikipedia, I have seen an admin desysopped and then

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Readers of Wikipedia

I've long seen categorisation on wikipedia as a way to bring articles to the attention of those who follow certain categories. During the cleanup of unreferenced biographies a few year ago this was a useful adjunct, with several wikiprojects cleaning up all the articles legitimately categorised

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Help us understand ORES and make good tradeoffs

I agree that we very rarely misidentify vandalism. Where there is a dichotomy between quality and openness is in our handling of new unsourced content. There are no easy solutions here, but I would acknowledge both that a significant proportion of new unsourced content is good faith, and also

Re: [Wiki-research-l] User type context sensitivity to introduction sections.

Dear Stuart, The problem with notifying the article creators and templating the articles is that the people who wrote that content are not necessarily the ones who can rewrite it more clearly. And templating rarely solves problems, it often just adds more clutter to a confused article.

Re: [Wiki-research-l] ¿Model to automatically classify if one user is bot or not?

utions/IngredientSortBot; > but it's not included in any bot group and, because of that, it was > included in my analysis and thus, biasing it. > > El sáb., 19 ene. 2019 a las 20:42, WereSpielChequers (< > werespielchequ...@gmail.com>) escribió: > > > Aside from th

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Research on Edit Size

Dear Haifeng Zhang, If I were you, looking at this, I'd watch out for templates. Templates particularly substituted ones involve a lot of bytes that someone hasn't typed. I recently did an edit that involved me typing {{subst|Infobox academic}} you might be surprised how many bytes that

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Difference between vandal fighting with vs. without tools

Most of the vandalism I deal with nowadays I pick up when I am typo fixing. I rarely check the same typo as frequently as once a fortnight, so a lot of the vandalism I find is from over a week ago. That means it has got past several layers of defences, including the watchlisters (watch lists

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Question on article creation policy

Hi Haifeng, IP editors were able to create new articles until December 2005. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia There was a sea change on the pedia in 2007, and the number of active editors reached its highest peak then - even the 2015/2016 rally didn't get back to that level. I

Re: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of Wikipedia citations

Hi Greg, One of the major step changes in the early growth of the English Wikipedia was when a bot called RamBot created stub articles on US places. I think they were cited to the census. Others have created articles on rivers in countries and various other topics by similar programmatic means.

Re: [Wiki-research-l] New dataset of articles tagged by WikiProjects

Hi Kerry, I suspect it is likely to be different if you differentiate between articles tagged by people involved in a particular WikiProject, articles tagged into a WikiProject by newpage patrollers and other taggers, and articles tagged into all their relevant wikiprojects. The backlog of

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Asperges, ADHD and editors

I can fully understand that Wikipedians might be reluctant to reveal this sort of information, especially if they edit under their own name. But some do, and there are currently 624 Wikipedians who have put themselves in the category

Re: [Wiki-research-l] WikiHist.html: English Wikipedia's Full Revision History in HTML Format

I wouldn't use the phrase "Wikipedia’s deliberate policy of permanently deleting the entire history of deleted pages". Quite a few "deleted" pages do actually get restored, and depending on the deletion process it can be quite easy to get much deleted content back. Especially if someone volunteers

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Requesting access to deleted pages for research purposes

Hi Mackenie, You may be correct in either or both of your hypotheses, but you might also want to check out two other related ones. 1 Some academic institutions may have an element of misogyny in their HR policies, leading to such situations as an academic becoming notable for their work to the

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 179, Issue 7

wikimedia.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Wiki-research-l digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > >

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 179, Issue 7

deleted per BLPProd as that is for completely unsourced biographies of living people. Regards WereSpielChequers On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 at 01:32, Mackenzie Lemieux wrote: > Thank you everyone for your comments and suggestions on the topic of > gaining access to deleted articles! I will reach ou

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

Johan makes an important point about the adding of references. I'd just add that offline references generally take more time than online ones. That time might be time you'd have spent anyway, whether you subscribe to a particular magazine or would have read that book to stay up with your area of

Re: [Wiki-research-l] effects of vandalism and abuse on editors and readers

arch:Harassment_survey_2015 >- The body of work around barriers to newcomers might have some good >insights too -- e.g., > > https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfaker/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/ > > > On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 5:44 AM WereSpielChequers < > weres

Re: [Wiki-research-l] effects of vandalism and abuse on editors and readers

_2019> > > ) > > - Annual Community Insights Reports often have a section on this -- > > e.g., > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Insights/Community_Insights_2020_Report/Thriving_Movement#Safe_and_Secure_Spaces > > - 2015 Harass

Re: [Wiki-research-l] effects of vandalism and abuse on editors and readers

gies (or seemingly none at all) for > counter-vandalism over time. > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 10:58 AM WereSpielChequers < > werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Aaron, > > > > That was an interesting read and a bit of a time capsule. 2002-2006 is

Re: [Wiki-research-l] effects of vandalism and abuse on editors and readers

Hi Amir, This is one of those areas of research where we really need the annual editor survey. I think it ran once after the 2009/10 Strategy process, and I don't know if the best questions got included. But the best time to ask editors what prompted them to start editing has to be fairly soon

[Wiki-research-l] Re: Negative views of Wikipedia in schools [was: Re: Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 193, Issue 5

Dear Mathieu, This comes up frequently in outreach events, especially to academia. The first point to get across is that Wikipedia is a General Interest encyclopaedia, a tertiary source compiled from primary and secondary sources. Anyone studying a subject at university is expected to have much

  1   2   >