Anders, I really like your idea on "universal" articles. given the fact that translation and communication cross languages is not a very task these days any more.
By the way, in a blog post, I have release some more data on languages like Japanese, Chinese, and Portugies, in case anyone's interested: http://tahayasseri.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/wikipedia-modern-platform-ancient-debates-on-land-and-gods/ bests, Taha On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Anders Wennersten <[email protected] > wrote: > I see the difference on the different version as most interesting and to > have some insight into Arabic version, I have not had before > > On a "small version" like sv:wp we are very used to "steal with pride" > content from other versions, primary en:wp but also de:wp and others and we > do this especially for controversial subjects that are not specific for a > country/culture. But are en:wp and other big versions doing the same? It is > very refreshing for a clinched discussion to start with an almost all new > textversion. > > Also I wonder over articles like Homeopathy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/* > *Homeopathy <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy> which seems to be > in top of controversies. Would it be an idea to compile an unverisal > article with help from different versions, ie do we really utilize the > power of us having many versions and many experts? > > Anders > > > > Osmar Valdebenito skrev 2013-07-22 16:13: > > I was interviewed a few days ago from a Chilean newspaper because of this >> paper. For those interested that can read Spanish here is the full >> article: >> http://www.latercera.com/**noticia/tendencias/2013/07/** >> 659-533645-9-estudio-dice-que-**chile-es-el-articulo-de-** >> wikipedia-mas-editado-en-**espanol.shtml<http://www.latercera.com/noticia/tendencias/2013/07/659-533645-9-estudio-dice-que-chile-es-el-articulo-de-wikipedia-mas-editado-en-espanol.shtml> >> >> I read the paper in full and I have to admit it has very interesting >> approaches to remove the "vandalism" effect. Probably it won't be perfect, >> especially for a platform where it is impossible to have an exact, >> quantitative measure of quality or neutrality. Is there a measure of >> controversiality? I will consider controversial those articles where I >> usually edit and probably I will ignore several others that are more >> controversial and so on... >> >> But besides the particular issue of which is the most controversial >> article, I'm more interested in the trends that each Wikipedia has. They >> seem consistent and I think there is a lot of things that we can learn >> from >> it. >> >> *Osmar Valdebenito G.* >> Director Ejecutivo >> A. C. Wikimedia Argentina >> >> >> 2013/7/22 Taha Yasseri <[email protected]> >> >> Thanks Tilman. >>> >>> Especially for your effort to resolve the misunderstandings, which most >>> of >>> them I suppose are due to a shallow reading: "I had a bit of free time >>> last >>> night waiting for trains and I skimmed through the study and its >>> findings." >>> >>> We had two strategies to get rid of vandalisms, as you mentioned, >>> considering only mutual reverts and waiting editors by their maturity, I >>> suppose a vandal could not have a large maturity score by definition. >>> >>> As for the data, this study has been carried out in 2011, and we worked >>> on >>> the latest available dump at the time. Someone experienced in academic >>> research, especially at this scale well knows that it really takes time >>> to >>> get the analysis done, write the reports, get them reviewed, etc. >>> Especially that we have published 7-8 other papers during the same >>> period. >>> I see no problem in this as long as the metadata and such information >>> about >>> the methods and the data under study are mentioned in the manuscript, >>> which >>> is clearly the case here. I have seen many Wikipedia studies without any >>> mention of the dump they have used! >>> >>> Back to your concern for the general impression that the news media >>> give >>> on wikipedia being a battlefield, I'd like to mention that I have >>> emphasised the small number of controversial articles compare to the >>> total >>> number of articles in every single media response I had. Again as you >>> mentioned, we had given the percentages explicitly in our previous work. >>> But of course for obvious reasons journalists are not happy to highlight >>> this. They like to report on controversies and wars! This is not our >>> fault >>> that what they report could be misleading, as long as we had tried our >>> best >>> to avoid it. An interview of mine with BBC Radio Scotland: at 04:00 I >>> clearly say that there are millions and thousands of articles in >>> WIkipedia >>> which are not controversial, is available here: >>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/**8whovkmipbqdzlv/bbc_radio_**Scotland.mp3<https://www.dropbox.com/s/8whovkmipbqdzlv/bbc_radio_Scotland.mp3>. >>> I have >>> done the same in all the others. >>> >>> Finally, I wish that the public media coverage of our research which is >>> clearly far from perfect, could also provide the members of the public a >>> better understanding of how Wikipedia works and how fascinating it is! >>> >>> Thanks again, >>> >>> Taha >>> >>> >>> On 22 Jul 2013 05:58, "Tilman Bayer" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 2:32 PM, MZMcBride <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anders Wennersten wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> A most interesting study looking at findings from 10 different >>>>>> language >>>>>> versions. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jesus and Middle east are the most controversial articles seen over >>>>>> the >>>>>> world, but George Bush on en:wp and Chile on es:wp >>>>>> >>>>>> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/**papers/1305/1305.5566.pdf<http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.5566.pdf> >>>>>> >>>>> FWIW, here is the review by Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia in last month's >>>> Wikimedia Research Newsletter: >>>> >>>> >>>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/**2013/06/28/wikimedia-research-** >>> newsletter-june-2013/#.22The_**most_controversial_topics_in_** >>> Wikipedia:_a_multilingual_and_**geographical_analysis.22<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/06/28/wikimedia-research-newsletter-june-2013/#.22The_most_controversial_topics_in_Wikipedia:_a_multilingual_and_geographical_analysis.22> >>> >>>> (also published in the Signpost, the weekly newsletter on the English >>>> Wikipedia) >>>> >>>> Thanks for sharing this. >>>>> >>>>> I had a bit of free time last night waiting for trains and I skimmed >>>>> through the study and its findings. Two points stuck out at me: a >>>>> seemingly fatally flawed methodology and the age of data used. >>>>> >>>>> The methodology used in this study seems to be pretty inherently >>>>> >>>> flawed. >>> >>>> According to the paper, controversiality was measured by full page >>>>> reverts, which are fairly trivial to identify and study in a database >>>>> >>>> dump >>>> >>>>> (using cryptographic hashes, as the study did), but I don't think full >>>>> reverts give an accurate impression _at all_ of which articles are the >>>>> most controversial. >>>>> >>>>> Pages with many full reverts are indicative of pages that are heavily >>>>> vandalized. For example, the "George W. Bush" article is/was heavily >>>>> vandalized for years on the English Wikipedia. Does blanking the >>>>> >>>> article >>> >>>> or replacing its contents with the word "penis" mean that it's a very >>>>> controversial article? Of course not. Measuring only full reverts (as >>>>> >>>> the >>> >>>> study seems to have done, though it's certainly possible I've >>>>> >>>> overlooked >>> >>>> something) seems to be really misleading and inaccurate. >>>>> >>>> They didn't. You may have overlooked the description of the >>>> methodology on p.5: It's based on "mutual reverts" where user A has >>>> reverted user B and user B has reverted user A, and gives higher >>>> weight to disputes between more experienced editors. This should >>>> exclude most vandalism reverts of the sort you describe. As noted in >>>> Giovanni's review, this method was proposed in an earlier paper, Sumi >>>> et al. ( >>>> >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Research:Newsletter/2011/** >>> July#Edit_wars_and_conflict_**metrics<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2011/July#Edit_wars_and_conflict_metrics> >>> >>>> ). That paper explains at length how this metric serves to distinguish >>>> vandalism reverts from edit wars. Of course there are ample >>>> possibilities to refine it, e.g. taking into account page protection >>>> logs. >>>> >>>> Personally, I'm more concerned that the new paper totally fails to put >>>> its subject into perspective by stating how frequent such >>>> controversial articles are overall on Wikipedia. Thus it's no wonder >>>> that the ample international media coverage that it generated mostly >>>> transports the notion (or reinforces the preconception) of Wikipedia >>>> as a huge battleground. >>>> >>>> The 2011 Sumi et al. paper did a better job in that respect: "less >>>> than 25k articles, i.e. less than 1% of the 3m articles available in >>>> the November 2009 English WP dump, can be called controversial, and of >>>> these, less than half are truly edit wars." >>>> >>>> >>>> In order to measure how controversial an article is, there are a number >>>>> >>>> of >>>> >>>>> metrics that could be used, though of course no metric is perfect and >>>>> >>>> many >>>> >>>>> metrics can be very difficult to accurately and rigorously measure: >>>>> >>>>> * amount of talk page discussion generated for each article; >>>>> * number of page watchers; >>>>> * number of page views (possibly); >>>>> * number of arbitration cases or other dispute resolution procedures >>>>> related to the article (perhaps a key metric in determining which >>>>> >>>> articles >>>> >>>>> are truly most controversial); and >>>>> * edit frequency and time between certain edits and partial or full >>>>> reverts of those edits. >>>>> >>>>> There are likely a number of other metrics that could be used as well >>>>> >>>> to >>> >>>> measure controversiality; these were simply off the top of my head. >>>>> >>>> Perhaps you are interested in this 2012 paper comparing such metrics, >>>> which the authors of the present paper cite to justify their choice of >>>> metric: >>>> Sepehri Rad, H., Barbosa, D.: Identifying controversial articles in >>>> Wikipedia: A comparative study. >>>> http://www.wikisym.org/ws2012/**p18wikisym2012.pdf<http://www.wikisym.org/ws2012/p18wikisym2012.pdf> >>>> >>>> Regarding detection of (partial or full) reverts, see also >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Research:Revert_detection<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revert_detection> >>>> >>>> The second point that stuck out at me was that the study relied on a >>>>> database dump from March 2010. While this may be unavoidable, being >>>>> >>>> over >>> >>>> three years later, this introduces obvious bias into the data and its >>>>> findings. Put another way, for the English Wikipedia started in 2001, >>>>> >>>> this >>>> >>>>> omits a quarter of the project's history(!). Again, given the length of >>>>> time needed to draft and prepare a study, this gap may very well be >>>>> unavoidable, but it certainly made me raise an eyebrow. >>>>> >>>>> One final comment I had from briefly reading the study was that in the >>>>> past few years we've made good strides in making research like this >>>>> easier. Not that computing cryptographic hashes is particularly >>>>> >>>> intensive, >>>> >>>>> but these days we now store such hashes directly in the database >>>>> >>>> (though >>> >>>> we store SHA-1 hashes, not MD5 hashes as the study used). Storing these >>>>> hashes in the database saves researchers the need to compute the hashes >>>>> themselves and allows MediaWiki and other software the ability to >>>>> >>>> easily >>> >>>> and quickly detect full reverts. >>>>> >>>>> MZMcBride >>>>> >>>>> P.S. Noting that this study is still a draft, I happened to notice a >>>>> >>>> small >>>> >>>>> typo on page nine: "We tried to a as diverse as possible sample >>>>> >>>> including >>> >>>> West European [...]". Hopefully this can be corrected before formal >>>>> publication. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Tilman Bayer >>>> Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) >>>> Wikimedia Foundation >>>> IRC (Freenode): HaeB >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr Taha Yasseri >>> http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/**people/yasseri/<http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/yasseri/> >>> Oxford Internet Institute >>> University of Oxford >>> 1 St.Giles >>> Oxford OX1 3JS >>> Tel.01865-287229 >>> ------------------------------**------------- >>> Latest Article: Phys. Rev. Lett. Opinions, Conflicts, and Consensus: >>> Modeling Social Dynamics in a Collaborative >>> Environment<http://prl.aps.**org/abstract/PRL/v110/i8/**e088701<http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v110/i8/e088701> >>> > >>> >>> Non-technical review: University of Oxford, Mathematical model >>> 'describes' >>> how online conflicts are >>> resolved<http://www.ox.ac.uk/**media/news_stories/2013/**130220.html<http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2013/130220.html> >>> > >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list >>> [email protected].**org <[email protected]> >>> Unsubscribe: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l> >>> , >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.org<[email protected]> >>> ?subject=**unsubscribe> >>> >>> ______________________________**_________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list >> [email protected].**org <[email protected]> >> Unsubscribe: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>, >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.org<[email protected]> >> ?subject=**unsubscribe> >> > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [email protected].**org <[email protected]> > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.org<[email protected]> > ?subject=**unsubscribe> > -- Dr Taha Yasseri http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/yasseri/ Oxford Internet Institute University of Oxford 1 St.Giles Oxford OX1 3JS Tel.01865-287229 ------------------------------------------- Latest Article: Phys. Rev. Lett. Opinions, Conflicts, and Consensus: Modeling Social Dynamics in a Collaborative Environment<http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v110/i8/e088701> Non-technical review: University of Oxford, Mathematical model 'describes' how online conflicts are resolved<http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2013/130220.html> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
