> > the Hale Anti-Bot Method™ That's a good one. =)
I'm a big fan of Scott's method > I second that. Again, great paper, Scott! On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Aaron Halfaker <[email protected]>wrote: > Another thought I had was that because many semi-automated tools such as >> Twinkle and AWB leave parenthetical annotations in their revision comments > > > See Stuarts comments above. And also the queries he linked too. > https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/MySQL_queries#Automated_tool_and_bot_edits > It would be nice if we could get these queries in version control and > share them. > > Maybe there is potential for building a hand-curated list of bot user_ids > in version control as well. > > -Aaron > > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Brian Keegan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks for all the references and excellent advice so far! >> >> I've looked into the Hale Anti-Bot Method™, but because I've sampled my >> corpus on articles (based on category co-membership), the resulting groupby >> users gives these semi-automated users more "normal" distributions since >> their other contributions are censored. In other words, I see only a >> fraction of these users' contributions and thus the resulting time >> intervals I observe are spaced farther apart (more typical) than they >> actually are. It's not feasible for me to get 100k+ users' histories just >> for the purposes of cleaning up ~6k articles' histories. >> >> Another thought I had was that because many semi-automated tools such as >> Twinkle and AWB leave parenthetical annotations in their revision comments, >> would this be a relatively inexpensive way to filter out revisions rather >> than users? Some caveats, I'd like to get domain experts' feedback on. I'm >> not expecting settled research, just input from others' experiences munging >> the data. >> >> 1. Is the inclusion of this markup in revision comments optional? This is >> a concern that some users may enable or disable it, so I may end up biasing >> inclusion based on users' preferences. >> 2. How have these flags or markup changed over time? This is a concern >> that Twinke/AWB/etc. may have started/stopped including flags or changed >> what they included over time. >> 3. Are there other API queries or data elsewhere I could use to identify >> (semi-)automated revisions? >> >> >> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Brian Keegan, 18/05/2014 18:10: >>> >>> Is there a way to retrieve a canonical list of bots on enwiki or >>>> elsewhere? >>>> >>> >>> A Bots.csv list exists. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikistat_csv >>> In general: please edit https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >>> wiki/Research:Identifying_bot_accounts >>> >>> Nemo >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Brian C. Keegan, Ph.D. >> Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Lazer Lab >> College of Social Sciences and Humanities, Northeastern University >> Fellow, Institute for Quantitative Social Sciences, Harvard University >> Affiliate, Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard Law School >> >> [email protected] >> www.brianckeegan.com >> M: 617.803.6971 >> O: 617.373.7200 >> Skype: bckeegan >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wiki-research-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > -- ----------------------------------------- Kind regards, Ann Samoilenko, MSc Oxford Internet Institute University of Oxford Adventures can change your life e-mail: [email protected] Skype: ann.samoilenko
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
