The Springer paywall is no longer a problem for open science since there is a certain Russian website, but in this case I see that we can find the full article on ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alessandro_Piscopo/publication/319272942_What_makes_a_good_collaborative_knowledge_graph_Group_composition_and_quality_in_Wikidata/links/599fd3d2a6fdccf594266835/What-makes-a-good-collaborative-knowledge-graph-Group-composition-and-quality-in-Wikidata .pdf <about:invalid#zClosurez>
2017-09-07 8:46 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]>: > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
