Hoi,
Sorry but with only conclusions it is just that.. hidden behind a paywall.
Consequently it does not make a difference; our community cannot comment.
Please choose a different venue for publications.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 7 September 2017 at 08:37, Ettore RIZZA <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, here is a fresh paper that seems to have been written to answer the
> questions I had after this discussion.
>
> " We performed a regression analysis to investigate how the contribution
> of different types of users, i.e. bots and human editors, registered or
> anonymous, influences outcome quality in Wikidata. Moreover, we looked at
> the effects of tenure and interest diversity among registered users. Our
> findings show that a balanced contribution of bots and human editors
> positively influence outcome quality, whereas higher numbers of anonymous
> edits may hinder performance. Tenure and interest diversity within groups
> also lead to higher quality. "
>
> https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-67217-5_19
>
> 2017-09-02 15:53 GMT+02:00 Jane Darnell <[email protected]>:
>
>> Thanks! That really made me laugh and I needed that. The wonderful story
>> of Wikidata's history set within the wonderful story of Wikipedia's history
>> anno 2014 is truly amazing. Using that information to describe Wikidata
>> today is like trying to imagine the "bot wars" that have recently become a
>> viral hit on various social media websites. You could say Wikidata was born
>> out of a need to end "bot wars" between updating interwikilink bots. After
>> that "bot war" ended though, it looks like we created a new "bot war" where
>> Wikipedians became afraid of this new project because they might get bitten
>> by a bot.
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/08/30/wikipedia-bot-pocalypse/
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Ettore RIZZA <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jane,
>>>
>>> I'm really sorry if my naïve comment made you sad. :/ To be clearer, I
>>> never wanted to minimize the contribution of the volunteers! It's just that
>>> I still don't know the internal mechanics of Wikidata. I recently read in a
>>> paper, already a bit old*, that 90% of editions were made by bots. I just
>>> thought that the mapping between the Wikipedia editions and Wikidata was
>>> part of these 90% automated tasks, after which the volunteers had to add
>>> the missing 10%, correct and enrich the automatic operations, etc. I'm
>>> sorry if I misunderstood.
>>>
>>> ** " Wikidata has grown significantly since its launch in October 2012;
>>> see the table here for key facts about its current content. It has also
>>> become the most edited Wikimedia project, with 150– 500 edits per minute,
>>> or a half million per day, about three times as many as the English
>>> Wikipedia. Approximately 90% of these edits are made by bots contributors
>>> create for automating tasks, yet almost one million edits per month are
>>> still made by humans."* (VRANDEČIĆ, Denny et KRÖTZSCH, Markus.
>>> Wikidata: a free collaborative knowledgebase. *Communications of the
>>> ACM*, 2014, vol. 57, no 10, p. 78-85.)
>>>
>>> 2017-09-02 14:42 GMT+02:00 Ed Summers <[email protected]>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On Sep 2, 2017, at 7:47 AM, Jane Darnell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Your note really made me feel so sad. I try to motivate my Wikipedian
>>>> friends into doing more on Wikidata and each time they react the way you
>>>> did, with a sentence like "I imagined that the mapping between Wikipedia
>>>> and Wikidata was ultra-automated." I guess there is something about the
>>>> "data" word in the same that makes people assume it is technical, or that
>>>> being "machine-readable" makes it impossible for humans to read and without
>>>> "bot" knowlege, there is no place for "normal contributors" to help out.
>>>>
>>>> I appreciate this perspective a great deal. I think it's great that you
>>>> are motivating users to edit Wikidata--it's really important. Wikidata is
>>>> nothing (IMHO) without the human-in-the-loop.
>>>>
>>>> But as a practical matter wouldn't it be useful if there were stubs in
>>>> Wikidata that would help editors identify which entities need attention? Or
>>>> would the vastness of it cause a problem?
>>>>
>>>> I can certainly see an argument for an embargo period to give
>>>> counter-vandalism efforts a chance to triage the new pages. But after that
>>>> point wouldn't it be useful if a bot monitored the language wikipedias for
>>>> new entries and then added them to Wikidata so that people could fill them
>>>> out?
>>>>
>>>> I'm just throwing ideas around here, and am not trying to be critical
>>>> of the current state of affairs. You all are doing amazing work.
>>>>
>>>> //Ed
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikidata mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikidata mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
