Re: [WikiEN-l] The general population & AfD
This is a nicely competent paper. Thanks for the heads up! SJ On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Gwern Branwen wrote: > http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~lam/papers/lam_group2010_wikipedia-group-decisions.pdf > : > >> "We also found that there have been two bots (computer programs that edit >> Wikipedia)—BJBot and Jayden54Bot—that automatically automatically notified >> article editors about AfD discussions and recruited them to participate per >> the established policy. These bots performed AfD notifications for several >> months, and offer us an opportunity to study the effect of recruitment that >> is purely policy driven. We use a process like one described above to detect >> successful instances of bot-initiated recruitment: if a recruitment bot >> edited a user’s talk page, and that user !voted in an AfD within two days, >> then we consider that user to have been recruited by the bot. >> Using the above processes, we identified 8,464 instances of successful >> recruiting. Table 2 shows a summary of who did the recruiting, and how their >> recruits !voted. We see large differences in !voting behavior, which >> suggests that there is bias in who people choose to recruit. (From these >> data we cannot tell whether the bias is an intentional effort to influence >> consensus, or the result of social network homophily [14].) Participants >> recruited by keep !voters were about four times less likely to support >> deletion as those recruited by delete !voters. The participants that bots >> recruited also appear unlikely to support deletion, which reflects the >> policy bias we observed earlier." > > -- > gwern > http://www.gwern.net > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Candidates' names as neologisms
Santorum isn't the only candidate who's had somebody try to use his name as a word for something gross (though probably the most successful example of it happening)... in a recent Cracked article: "He wanted to be President Trump, even though "trump," as a word, sounds like it should be slang for that sometimes flabby part of the body where the under-ass rubs up against the back of the leg. Like, "We were making out behind the shed at the mini-golf place and I was grabbin' her butt, but I had to quit because this chick had mad trump- sweat. It was gross." He said he wanted to run for president." http://www.cracked.com/blog/i-cant-tell-if-world-being-serious-anymore/ -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
On Thu, 26 May 2011, George Herbert wrote: > In this particular, I am vexed and confused. If the longer article > makes him look better, why in the flying spaghetti monster's name are > those advocating human dignity here asking to shorten it? The main negative effect of the article on Santorum is not that it makes negative factual claims, it's that associating him with shit is inherently negative. Shortening the article (and especially, shortening it in ways which mitigate the Googlebombing effect) helps against this negative effect. I'm sure an article about the Richard Gere gerbil rumor which devoted an extra page to explaining why the rumor is false would make him "look better"-- if by "look better" you mean "prevent negative factual inferences". But that's not the only way in which an article can make someone look more or less better. We don't have such an article no matter how many reliable sources describe the rumor, because merely having the article is bad for him. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Brian J Mingus > wrote: >> This strikes me as indirection. If someone claims that an article is >> biased >> then they are also claiming that the process governing its creation is >> biased. Such a claim is not a slur, it is a purported statement of >> fact. >> However, you would say that the claim is invalid because to claim that >> an >> article is biased is to necessarily not assume good faith. Following >> your >> line of indirection, it isn't possible to claim that an article is >> biased >> because you would necessary violate the principle of good faith, ie, >> implicitly or explicitly claiming that particular editors are biased. I >> believe you would rather follow this line of reasoning because it >> directs >> attention away from the real issues at hand. > > This bunch of wikilawyering ignores the fact that you directly called > the *contributors* and not the article biased. And you've doubled > down on the baseless accusations by accusing me of trying to distract > from the issue at hand. For what reason? Motive: Unknown. I guess > I'm one of those "biased anti-Santorum contributors" you initially > complained about. Proof of this presented: None. > > How long have you been editing Wikipedia? I'd expect this kind of > behavior from a combative new editor, but an experienced editor or > administrator really should know better. How editors interact with > one another isn't a "distraction", it's pretty fundamental to what we > do here. We need to grapple with the articles, and templates, on the wiki. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
