Per Howie's prompting (this was cool! You should send it out to the team) some research I did in my spare time - http://blog.ironholds.org/?p=31
Planning to do a pile of followup work, so any feedback, hypotheses or requests for info gratefully received.
Very cool!
Is there an easy way we could detect some false-positives? I'm imagining blocks that were quickly reversed.
-Aaron
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
Per Howie's prompting (this was cool! You should send it out to the team) some research I did in my spare time - http://blog.ironholds.org/?p=31
Planning to do a pile of followup work, so any feedback, hypotheses or requests for info gratefully received.
-- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
These are exclusively standing indefinite blocks from the ipblock table, rather than blocks from the logging table, solely to avoid that. One piece of followup I'm doing will involve using the logging table instead - I'm thunkin' hard on ways to detect quickly-reverted blocks (compare timestamps of block/unblock, exclude those with a difference less than... or something). Parsing which unblocks apply to which blocks'll be the fun bit :)
On 30 April 2013 21:53, Aaron Halfaker aaron.halfaker@gmail.com wrote:
Very cool!
Is there an easy way we could detect some false-positives? I'm imagining blocks that were quickly reversed.
-Aaron
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Per Howie's prompting (this was cool! You should send it out to the team) some research I did in my spare time - http://blog.ironholds.org/?p=31
Planning to do a pile of followup work, so any feedback, hypotheses or requests for info gratefully received.
-- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
Nice work, Oliver.
Minor feedback: I'd remove the 2013 data from the first 2 graphs. It's easy for people to miss the fact that those data are for < 1 year, even though you explain that in the text (and given it should be obvious to someone reading this in April...).
However, what jumps out to someone who's skimming is "whoa, sudden drop in [interesting phenomenon foo] during 2013--wtf?"
- J
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Aaron Halfaker aaron.halfaker@gmail.comwrote:
Very cool!
Is there an easy way we could detect some false-positives? I'm imagining blocks that were quickly reversed.
-Aaron
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Per Howie's prompting (this was cool! You should send it out to the team) some research I did in my spare time - http://blog.ironholds.org/?p=31
Planning to do a pile of followup work, so any feedback, hypotheses or requests for info gratefully received.
-- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
Good point. Feedback on future things to look at/how to turn this into something that might have a productive, rather than informative, outcome?
On 30 April 2013 23:56, Jonathan Morgan jmorgan@wikimedia.org wrote:
Nice work, Oliver.
Minor feedback: I'd remove the 2013 data from the first 2 graphs. It's easy for people to miss the fact that those data are for < 1 year, even though you explain that in the text (and given it should be obvious to someone reading this in April...).
However, what jumps out to someone who's skimming is "whoa, sudden drop in [interesting phenomenon foo] during 2013--wtf?"
- J
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Aaron Halfaker aaron.halfaker@gmail.comwrote:
Very cool!
Is there an easy way we could detect some false-positives? I'm imagining blocks that were quickly reversed.
-Aaron
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Per Howie's prompting (this was cool! You should send it out to the team) some research I did in my spare time - http://blog.ironholds.org/?p=31
Planning to do a pile of followup work, so any feedback, hypotheses or requests for info gratefully received.
-- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
-- Jonathan T. Morgan Research Strategist Wikimedia Foundation
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
Hmm... expand the regex, to make sure you're accounting for most of the possible rationales? There are a number of word frequency calculators out there that will show you the most common words in block rev edit comments. Some will even exclude common stopwordshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_words .
Bonus points if you make a pretty wordle http://www.wordle.net/ out of your results and upload it to commons.
- J
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
Good point. Feedback on future things to look at/how to turn this into something that might have a productive, rather than informative, outcome?
On 30 April 2013 23:56, Jonathan Morgan jmorgan@wikimedia.org wrote:
Nice work, Oliver.
Minor feedback: I'd remove the 2013 data from the first 2 graphs. It's easy for people to miss the fact that those data are for < 1 year, even though you explain that in the text (and given it should be obvious to someone reading this in April...).
However, what jumps out to someone who's skimming is "whoa, sudden drop in [interesting phenomenon foo] during 2013--wtf?"
- J
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Aaron Halfaker <aaron.halfaker@gmail.com
wrote:
Very cool!
Is there an easy way we could detect some false-positives? I'm imagining blocks that were quickly reversed.
-Aaron
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Per Howie's prompting (this was cool! You should send it out to the team) some research I did in my spare time - http://blog.ironholds.org/?p=31
Planning to do a pile of followup work, so any feedback, hypotheses or requests for info gratefully received.
-- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
-- Jonathan T. Morgan Research Strategist Wikimedia Foundation
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
-- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
Neat :).
On 1 May 2013 00:10, Jonathan Morgan jmorgan@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hmm... expand the regex, to make sure you're accounting for most of the possible rationales? There are a number of word frequency calculators out there that will show you the most common words in block rev edit comments. Some will even exclude common stopwordshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_words .
Bonus points if you make a pretty wordle http://www.wordle.net/ out of your results and upload it to commons.
- J
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Good point. Feedback on future things to look at/how to turn this into something that might have a productive, rather than informative, outcome?
On 30 April 2013 23:56, Jonathan Morgan jmorgan@wikimedia.org wrote:
Nice work, Oliver.
Minor feedback: I'd remove the 2013 data from the first 2 graphs. It's easy for people to miss the fact that those data are for < 1 year, even though you explain that in the text (and given it should be obvious to someone reading this in April...).
However, what jumps out to someone who's skimming is "whoa, sudden drop in [interesting phenomenon foo] during 2013--wtf?"
- J
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Aaron Halfaker < aaron.halfaker@gmail.com> wrote:
Very cool!
Is there an easy way we could detect some false-positives? I'm imagining blocks that were quickly reversed.
-Aaron
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Per Howie's prompting (this was cool! You should send it out to the team) some research I did in my spare time - http://blog.ironholds.org/?p=31
Planning to do a pile of followup work, so any feedback, hypotheses or requests for info gratefully received.
-- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
-- Jonathan T. Morgan Research Strategist Wikimedia Foundation
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
-- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
-- Jonathan T. Morgan Research Strategist Wikimedia Foundation
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee