On a different track and back to Tilman's concern, we managed to get the following sentence published in the Washington Post:
Among the 3.2 million articles Yasseri’s group studied last year, fewer than 100 appeared to be on a definite trajectory toward perpetual disagreement. That’s an excellent record for Wikipedia. Insofar as the free encyclopedia provides a model for intellectual collaboration through social media, those results are also encouraging for the pursuit of knowledge in general. the full article is available here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/23/the-science-of-wikipedia-flamewars/ bests, Taha On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Balázs Viczián <balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu > wrote: > When I started editing in 2006 it was already the norm; ever since people > are encouraging each other to place their questions about a given article > rather on the village pump or a project page, than on the actual article's > talk page, reasoning that there is larger traffic....what generates even > larger traffic on those pages making article talks even more sparse :) > > I guess only a socio-cultural research could answer the question: why is it > like that on huwiki. Maybe one day in the bright (and hopefully not so far) > future Wikimedia Hungary will order a similar research so you can use that > later on in your own research ;) > > Üdv, > Balázs > > > 2013/7/22 Taha Yasseri <taha.yass...@oii.ox.ac.uk> > > > That's very interesting to know. Thanks for telling me. We were quite > > surprised by seeing very spars talk pages in Hungarian Wiki. > > I'm sure you know better than me that article talk pages are for > different > > purposes that user talks and the village pump. However that's interesting > > that Hungarian Wikipedia prefer to take the discussion to other places > than > > talk pages. > > > > szervusz > > Taha. > > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:32 PM, Balázs Viczián < > > balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu > > > wrote: > > > > > As a Hungarian, it is really interesting to read something specific > > > about the Hungarian Wikipedia :) > > > > > > I read somewhere (correct me if I'm wrong) that you found little to no > > > discussions on article talk pages on the Hungarian Wikipedia, > > > indicating that users barely discuss the content (or anything at all > > > about the given article). > > > > > > Actually these discussions are either quickly moving to the village > > > pump after 1-2 comments or happening there entirely. The most common > > > is that the users discuss it on their user talk pages by directly > > > messaging each other about the changes they made/content, creating > > > 2-3-4 paralel threads on each others's user talks. Article talks for > > > this reason are generally considered "deserted lands" on huwiki, what > > > almost nobody reads. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Balázs > > > > > > 2013/7/22 Taha Yasseri <taha.yass...@oii.ox.ac.uk> > > > > > > > > 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 < > > > m...@anderswennersten.se > > > > > 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 <taha.yass...@oii.ox.ac.uk> > > > > >> > > > > >> 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" <tba...@wikimedia.org> > wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 2:32 PM, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> > > 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 > > > > >>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org < > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > > > >>> Unsubscribe: > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l< > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l> > > > > >>> , > > > > >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.org< > > > wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org> > > > > >>> ?subject=**unsubscribe> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> ______________________________**_________________ > > > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list > > > > >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org < > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > > > > >> Unsubscribe: > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l< > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>, > > > > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.org< > > > wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org> > > > > >> ?subject=**unsubscribe> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > > > Unsubscribe: > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l< > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>, > > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.org< > > > wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org> > > > > > ?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 > > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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 > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>