where x reverts y y reverts x is a common action with vandalism, its also persistent and occurs multiple times, the most controversial articles are the ones which require ARBCOM controls/sanctions. The GW Bush article is one that I've watched for many years, yes there have been content issues but the majority of repetitive actions are of the vandalism type with hate/nonsense messages from throw away accounts many of these go thru the 3-5 edit revert cycles before the problem is dealt with.
On 9 June 2013 08:58, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raym...@gmail.com> wrote: > The paper goes into the methodology in some detail but it is the history > of “mutual reversions” (where two editors are involved, X reverts Y and Y > reverts X) that is used for precisely the reasons you mention.**** > > ** ** > > “The sum is taken over mutual reverts rather than single reverts because > reverting is very much part of the normal workflow, especially for > defending articles from vandalism.”**** > > ** ** > > Kerry**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Kerry Raymond [mailto:kerry.raym...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, 9 June 2013 8:06 AM > *To:* 'WMAu members'; 'Wikimedia Australia Chapter' > *Subject:* Most controversial articles on Wikipedia**** > > ** ** > > There has been an Hungarian research project into identifying > controversial articles in Wikipedia, based on the history of reversions and > edit wars. They have a website:**** > > ** ** > > http://wwm.phy.bme.hu/**** > > ** ** > > with their datasets, programs, papers, etc. But the bit you are probably > most itching to see “the top 100 controversial articles in English” (ranked > from most controversial down) is:**** > > ** ** > > http://wwm.phy.bme.hu/Top100/top100_en_wiki.txt**** > > ** ** > > with good ol’ “George W. Bush” heading up the list. **** > > ** ** > > If you want to know more about the methodology or see the top 10 across 10 > languages (article titles translating in English for your viewing pleasure > where a corresponding English article is available to provide a translated > title), you can access the PDF for the paper via:**** > > ** ** > > http://ssrn.com/abstract=2269392**** > > ** ** > > There is also this nifty real-time visualisation you can view (and play > with) which enables you understand the relative controversial nature across > up to 4 languages. It seems “Jesus” and “Homeopathy” are the most > controversial across English, French, German and Spanish, while “George W > Bush” is as controversial for English-speakers as “Falkland Islands” is for > Spanish speakers and “Croatia” is for German speakers – the French > meanwhile are fighting over the untranslatable “Segolene Royal” (for which > no corresponding article exists on en.WP -- can any French speaker assist > with the translation?). **** > > ** ** > > > http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~aspoerri/searchCrystal/searchCrystal_editWars_ALL.html > **** > > ** ** > > which is mentioned in the paper above but does not appear to be linked > from the website.**** > > ** ** > > There is a “Tour” link in the top left hand corner if you want to know how > to drive the visualisation. It looks like hours of fun!**** > > ** ** > > Kerry**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > -- GN. Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
