Wiki-research-l September 2015

wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org

21 participants
22 discussions

Verifying claims about ENWP project size
by Pine W 19 Sep '15

19 Sep '15

Hi researchers, I could use a little help with understanding these dumps: https://dumps.wikimedia.org/enwikisource/latest/ https://dumps.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20150901/ I'm trying to verify the claim that ENWP is the world's largest open text project, and to do that I need to verify that ENWP is larger than English Wikisource. Which files should I be comparing? Are there any other projects that could make a claim to be a larger open text project than ENWP? Perhaps there's a library somewhere that has such a huge volume of out-of-copyright materials that the combined bytes of published text are larger than ENWP? Thanks! Pine

5 6

Fwd: [GLAM] New Free Research Access via the Wikipedia Library
by Shani 18 Sep '15

18 Sep '15

Hi, everyone. Thought this might interest the Wiki-EDU and Wiki-Research communities as well. Cheers, Shani. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jake Orlowitz <jorlowitz(a)gmail.com> Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 3:47 AM Subject: [GLAM] New Free Research Access via the Wikipedia Library To: "wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org" <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Cc: wikipedialibrary-l(a)wikimedia.org, wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, wikimediareference-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, " wikimediaannounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org" < wikimediaannounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, "Wikimedia & GLAM collaboration [Public]" <glam(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, Wikimedia & Libraries < libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Hi! The Wikipedia Library has several new, free research donations available: * EBSCO (very expansive access to academic, newspaper, and magazine sources): <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EBSCO> * Newspaperarchive.com (historical newspapers from the United States, Canada, UK and 20 other countries--includes Open Access "clippings" feature): <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Newspaperarchive.com> * IMF Elibary (archival collection of IMF reports, studies and research on global economics and development): <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:IMF> * Sabinet (large African digital publisher with a wide range of content in English and other European and African languages): <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Sabinet> * Numérique Premium (French language social science and humanities ebook database with many topical collections): <https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Num%C3%A9rique_Premium> * Al Manhal (Arabic and English database with a variety of sources mainly focused on or published in the Middle East): < https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%88%D9%8A%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9… > * Jamalon (Arabic book distributor with physical book delivery to volunteers): < https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%88%D9%8A%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9… > Many other are resources are available, including Elsevier ScienceDirect, British Medical Journal, Dynamed, Project MUSE, DeGruyter, Newspapers.com, Highbeam, and HeinOnline. Do better research and help expand the use of high-quality references across Wikipedia projects. Sign up today! The Wikipedia Library Team <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wikipedia_Library> p.s. We engaged in a thoughtful debate this week about our access donation partnerships. You can read about our view, and we welcome your comments. <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/16/open-access-in-a-closed-world/> _______________________________________________ GLAM mailing list GLAM(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam

1 0

new PhD thesis incl. list posting quote
by koltzenburg＠w4w.net 17 Sep '15

17 Sep '15

hi all, hi Aaron, "Wikipedia entries on fiction and non-propositional knowledge representation" (wikified) = my PhD thesis Sept 2015, for a pdf version see http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.04206 abstract in English here: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikipedia_entries_on_fiction_and_non- propositional_knowledge_representation for the full text see link to de.wikiversity.org, its talk page is already being used :-) debate welcome anywhere, I also quote from postings to this list, of Feb 2015, Aaron Shaw's https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2015- February/004172.html and mine https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2015- February/004151.html that triggered his, thanks, Aaron! I reference your paper with Mako in a foonote, hope readers will notice it best, Claudia koltzenburg(a)w4w.net

1 0

September 2015 Research Showcase
by Leila Zia 15 Sep '15

15 Sep '15

Hi everyone, The next Research showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday (tomorrow), September 16 at 11.30 PST. The streaming link is: <http://www>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJk6mxJZhH8 As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research. We look forward to seeing you! Leila This month: <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase#September_2015> Morten Warncke-Wang will talk about the misalignment between production and consumption of quality content on Wikipedia, and Besnik Fetahu proposes a news-article suggestion task to improve news coverage in Wikipedia. *Fun or Functional? The Misalignment Between Content Quality and Popularity in Wikipedia* By Morten Warncke-Wang In peer production communities like Wikipedia, individual community members typically decide for themselves where to make contributions, often driven by factors such as “fun” or a belief that “information should be free”. However, the extent to which this bottom-up, interest-driven content production paradigm meets the need of consumers of this content is unclear. In this talk, I analyse four large Wikipedia language editions, finding extensive misalignment between production and consumption of quality content in all of them, and I show how this greatly impacts Wikipedia’s readers. I also examine misalignment in more detail by studying how it relates to specific topics, and to what extent high popularity is related to sudden changes in demand (i.e. “breaking news”). Finally, I discuss technologies and community practices that can help reduce misalignment in Wikipedia. *Automated News Suggestions for Populating Wikipedia Entity Pages* By Besnik Fetahu Wikipedia entity pages are a valuable source of information for direct consumption and for knowledge-base construction, update and maintenance. Facts in these entity pages are typically supported by references. Recent studies show that as much as 20% of the references are from online news sources. However, many entity pages are incomplete even if relevant information is already available in existing news articles. Even for the already present references, there is often a delay between the news article publication time and the reference time. In this work, we therefore look at Wikipedia through the lens of news and propose a novel news-article suggestion task to improve news coverage in Wikipedia, and reduce the lag of newsworthy references. Our work finds direct application, as a precursor, to Wikipedia page generation and knowledge-base acceleration tasks that rely on relevant and high quality input sources. We propose a two-stage supervised approach for suggesting news articles to entity pages for a given state of Wikipedia. First, we suggest news articles to Wikipedia entities (article-entity placement) relying on a rich set of features which take into account the salience and relative authority of entities, and the novelty of news articles to entity pages. Second, we determine the exact section in the entity page for the input article (article-section placement) guided by class-based section templates. We perform an extensive evaluation of our approach based on ground-truth data that is extracted from external references in Wikipedia. We achieve a high precision value of up to 93% in the article-entity suggestion stage and upto 84% for the article-section placement. Finally, we compare our approach against competitive baselines and show significant improvements.

1 0

Anyone using the user_daily_contribs table/API?
by Federico Leva (Nemo) 09 Sep '15

09 Sep '15

See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T85984 The user_daily_contribs table (and associated API) is sometimes used for * JavaScript (e.g. CentralNotice) targeting users based on activity in a certain timeframe, * simplification of SQL queries (e.g. [1]), * other? If you use this data/feature or plan to use it, or if you replaced it with something else, your comment on the task is particularly welcome to assess whether to keep it. Nemo [1] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/diffusion/TLST/browse/master/scripts/user…

2 1

Enabling Flow (better talk pages) on the Research namespace on meta
by Aaron Halfaker 08 Sep '15

08 Sep '15

Hey folks, I just filed a Request for Comments on Meta to enable Flow -- an improved discussion system -- in the Research namespace on meta. See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_comment/Enable_flow_in_th… This is meant to replace the talk-page based discussion mechanism that is currently in use. To try out a Flow board, see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Sandbox Please leave your comments on the bottom of the Meta page I linked to above. Here's a copy-paste for the lazy: I propose that Flow <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Flow> be enabled on the Research_talk namespace. This namespace is used to document and list projects involving original research of Wikimedia projects and technologies. See Research:Index <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Index>. I have been working on developing the research community around Wikimedia wikis as well as performing my own research projects. As a result, I have been very active in the "Research" namespace writing new content and discussing projects with others. It's clear to me that our work in this space will benefit from adopting Flow for discussions. Many researchers of Wikimedia projects do not engage on-wiki often and they find Flow to be more intuitive than talk pages. Flow topics are also much easier to track with notifications (a benefit I hope to reap). Further, the "Research" namespace content on meta is still new enough -- and under active development -- that we are poised to adapt to Flow-based conversation patterns. Note that I am the most active editor in this namespace. I have written our core templates (*e.g.*, Template:Research project <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Research_project>), category pages (*e.g.*, Category:Research projects <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Research_projects>) and documentation (*e.g.*, Research:New project <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:New_project>). So this change will primarily effect me and those who I work most closely with. As I have been developing templates and other mechanisms to support navigation in this namespace, I accept responsibility for making sure that workflow problems around such a transition are resolved. After all, given that I'm the most active editor in this namespace, most of those problems will be my own. Note that I am proposing this under my volunteer account, but I also work as senior research scientist for the Wikimedia Foundation. See User:Halfak (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Halfak_(WMF)>. --EpochFail <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:EpochFail>(talk <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EpochFail>) 17:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC) -Aaron

1 0

Why people don't edit?
by Rob 04 Sep '15

04 Sep '15

I know there's been lots of research (well, some) about why and how people read Wikipedia, but has there been any significant studies or research about why they don't edit? Not why they stopped editing or their numbers are dropping or how they got sick of the bureaucracy and markup code, but what barriers might exist to them ever making an edit in the first place. Thanks.

2 1

Editorial Bias in Crowd-Sourced Political Information
by Andrew Lih 03 Sep '15

03 Sep '15

Anyone seen this work in PLOS One? Any insights? Editorial Bias in Crowd-Sourced Political Information Joshua L. Kalla, Peter M. Aronow "We report the results of four randomized field experiments that sought to explore what biases exist in the political articles of [Wikipedia]." [1] AP writeup: "Researchers then added the facts to senators' Wikipedia pages and tracked whether they were removed." [2] [1] http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0136327 [2] http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/capitol-hill-buzz-polishing-senato…

2 1

The Wikimedia Research Newsletter 5(8) is out
by masssly＠ymail.com 02 Sep '15

02 Sep '15

The August 2015 issue of the Wikimedia Research Newsletter is out: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/01/wikimedia-research-newsletter-august-… https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2015/August In this issue: 1 OpenSym 2015 1.1 "Tool-Mediated Coordination of Virtual Teams" 2 Measuring Wiki Quality with PageRank 3 "Automated News Suggestions for Populating Wikipedia entity Pages" 4 "Amplifying the Impact of Open Access: Wikipedia and the Diffusion of Science" 5 Early warning system identifies likely vandals based on their editing behavior 6 "DBpedia Commons: Structured Multimedia Metadata from the Wikimedia Commons" 7 Briefly 7.1 Wikipedia in education as an acculturation process *** 7 publications and overview report of OpenSym 2015 were covered in this issue *** Thanks to Morten Warncke-Wang, Brian Keegan, Piotr Konieczny, Andrew Gray, Srijan Kumar, and Guillaume Paumier for contributing. Masssly, Tilman Bayer and Dario Taraborelli --- Wikimedia Research Newsletter https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/ * Follow us on Twitter/Identi.ca: @WikiResearch * Receive this newsletter by mail: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/research-newsletter * Subscribe to the RSS feed: http://blog.wikimedia.org/c/research-2/wikimedia-research-newsletter/feed/

1 0

Spambots and HTTPS
by Pine W 01 Sep '15

01 Sep '15

I noticed after HTTPS was enabled by default that there were many fewer spambots on one of the wikis that I monitor for recent changes. Did anyone else noticed a decline in spambots after HTTPS was enabled? This may be relevant to discussions about the highly active editor stats. While I doubt that spambots and vandals succeed in getting to 100 edits on the larger Wikipedias very often, rollbackers might. Additionally, a reduction in spambots and spambot-related rollbacks might affect the number of new accounts registered and the number of edits per month stats. Pine

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

Wiki-research-l September 2015