Tom, You may be interested in the ORES Platform <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/ORES>, which provides a vandalism detection service across many (but not all) Wikipedia languages. It works at the revision level, not the user level, but I suppose you could filter and/or aggregate.
Best, Jonathan On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 1:19 PM Kerry Raymond <[email protected]> wrote: > And, FWIW, I don’t think we have a flag on an edit saying that is > vandalism. We have a history that can show an edit that is reverted. On > inspection of the edit summary of the reversion, there may be some textual > clues e.g. “rvv” a common abbreviation for “reverting vandalism”. There may > be a message in the reverted IP’s talk page that uses words that suggest > vandalism (noting that many of these messages are templates and so have > highly predictable structure, usually with initially neutral terms like > “not constructive” escalating to the explicit use of the word “vandalism” > in some form). However, these messages may not specifically link to the > problematic edit so you would be looking for talk page messages appearing > “shortly” after the revert of the edit. > > Not all vandalism is immediately detected; there may be a number of other > edits intervening, which may make it impossible to revert. > > Not all vandalism is removed with revert, it may occur by “normal editing” > perhaps as part of a larger edit. > > Not all reverted edits are vandalism. They may be well-intentioned but > breach a Wikipedia policy (eg requirement for citation, present an opinion > as a fact). Some acceptable edits get reverted for a range of (mostly > unacceptable) reasons like gatekeeping, style errors, UI errors (if the GUI > loads slowly, my click to say thanks sometimes turns into a revert!), etc. > > And finally, as someone who does her watch list diligently, sometimes you > just can’t tell if an edit is vandalism. The classic is the small change in > dates. If there is no citation or the citation is to a off-line resource or > a deadlink, it may be impossible to tell if the changed information is a > genuine correction or a deliberately damaging action. Obviously I may have > my suspicions, but I do have the obligation to Assume Good Faith. It’s not > easy. > > Kerry > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > On 16 Jan 2019, at 9:03 pm, Thomas Stieve <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Dear Listserv, > > > > Hope all is well. I am mapping IP address edits per country for 271 > > language Wikipedias. I would like to exclude IP addresses that are > > vandalism. I was thinking of using the ipblocks table for the IP > addresses > > to be excluded. Because this project is in so many different languages > and > > my programming skills are intermediate, I would like to use the Wikipedia > > tables or registers that the Wikipedians in those language use to mark > > vandalism. If anyone has another idea, I would be most grateful. Perhaps > I > > am missing a way that Wikipedians across languages are using to mark > > vandalism. > > > > Thank you, > > Tom > > > > > > -- > > Thomas Stieve > > Ph.D. Candidate > > School of Geography and Development > > University of Arizona > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- Jonathan T. Morgan Senior Design Researcher Wikimedia Foundation User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)> _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
