2016 files are uploaded to Internet Archive. Identifier "
enwiki-pageviews2007-2016"
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 1:00 PM, <
wiki-research-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Send Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to
> wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wiki-research-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wiki-research-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wiki-research-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Upcoming research newsletter (November 2016): new papers open
> for review (masssly(a)ymail.com)
> 2. another pageview db to download (Alex Druk)
> 3. Re: another pageview db to download (Federico Leva (Nemo))
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2016 22:57:34 +0000
> From: <masssly(a)ymail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Research Mailing List
> <wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Upcoming research newsletter (November
> 2016): new papers open for review
> Message-ID: <726158.24370.bm(a)smtp108.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi everybody,
>
> We’re preparing for the November 2016 research newsletter and looking for
> contributors. Please take a look at: https://etherpad.wikimedia.
> org/p/WRN201611 and add your name next to any paper you are interested in
> covering. Reviews should be in before December 14. As usual, short notes
> and one-paragraph reviews are most welcome.
>
> Highlights from this month:
>
> • Black Lives Matter in Wikipedia: Collaboration and Collective Memory
> around Online Social Movements
> • DePP: A System for Detecting Pages to Protect in Wikipedia
> • Digital Heritage. Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation,
> Preservation, and Protection
> • Docforia: A Multilayer Document Model
> • Does astronomy research become too dated for the public? Wikipedia
> citations to astronomy and astrophysics journal articles 1996-2014
> • Election Prediction Based on Wikipedia Pageviews
> • Establishing and Evaluating Digital Ethos and Online Credibility
> • Finding and Expanding Hypernymic Relations in the Music Domain
> • Game with a Purpose for mappings verification
> • Hierarchical Question Answering for Long Documents
> • How Many People Constitute a Crowd and What Do They Do? Quantitative
> Analyses of Revisions in the English and German Wiktionary Editions
> • Measuring Quality of Collaboratively Edited Documents: the case of
> Wikipedia
> • On Emerging Entity Detection
> • Predicting Importance of Historical Persons Using Wikipedia
> • Relationship between personality and attitudes to Wikipedia
> • Social patterns and dynamics of creativity in Wikipedia
> • Travel Attractions Recommendation with Knowledge Graphs
> • What Makes a Link Successful on Wikipedia?
>
> If you have any question about the format or process feel free to get in
> touch off-list.
>
> Masssly, Tilman Bayer and Dario Taraborelli
>
> [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter
>
Hi everybody,
We’re preparing for the November 2016 research newsletter and looking for contributors. Please take a look at: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/WRN201611 and add your name next to any paper you are interested in covering. Reviews should be in before December 14. As usual, short notes and one-paragraph reviews are most welcome.
Highlights from this month:
• Black Lives Matter in Wikipedia: Collaboration and Collective Memory around Online Social Movements
• DePP: A System for Detecting Pages to Protect in Wikipedia
• Digital Heritage. Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation, Preservation, and Protection
• Docforia: A Multilayer Document Model
• Does astronomy research become too dated for the public? Wikipedia citations to astronomy and astrophysics journal articles 1996-2014
• Election Prediction Based on Wikipedia Pageviews
• Establishing and Evaluating Digital Ethos and Online Credibility
• Finding and Expanding Hypernymic Relations in the Music Domain
• Game with a Purpose for mappings verification
• Hierarchical Question Answering for Long Documents
• How Many People Constitute a Crowd and What Do They Do? Quantitative Analyses of Revisions in the English and German Wiktionary Editions
• Measuring Quality of Collaboratively Edited Documents: the case of Wikipedia
• On Emerging Entity Detection
• Predicting Importance of Historical Persons Using Wikipedia
• Relationship between personality and attitudes to Wikipedia
• Social patterns and dynamics of creativity in Wikipedia
• Travel Attractions Recommendation with Knowledge Graphs
• What Makes a Link Successful on Wikipedia?
If you have any question about the format or process feel free to get in touch off-list.
Masssly, Tilman Bayer and Dario Taraborelli
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter
Hi,
I’m looking for statistical information about template usage on Wikipedia. In particular I’m interested in the number of usages per template (I need to know which templates re the most popular ones) and also information about the number of template transclusions vs. substitutions.
Can somebody help me?
Thanks a lot,
Felix Engelmann
Forwarding to Analytics, Research, and Wikimetrics in case this is of
interest to people who aren't subscribed to the Labs mailing list.
Pine
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bryan Davis <bd808(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 9:28 AM
Subject: [Labs-l] Tell us about the SQL that you can't get to work
To: labs-l <labs-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
In early January there is going to be a Developer Summit in San
Francisco [0]. Chase and I are in charge of scheduling talks on the
topic "Building on Wikimedia services: APIs and Developer Resources".
One of the more interesting to me talks that has been proposed for
this is "Labsdbs for WMF tools and contributors: get more data,
faster" by Jamie Crespo [1].
I know that most of you won't be able to attend in person, but if we
can show that there is enough interest in this topic we can get the
talk scheduled in a main room and recorded so anyone can watch it
later.
An idea I just had for showing interest is to get Tool Labs
maintainers and other Labs users to describe questions that they have
tried and failed to answer using SQL queries. We can look at the kinds
of questions that come up and ask Jamie (and others) if there are some
general recommendations that can be made about how to improve
performance or understand how the bits and pieces of our data model
fit together.
To kick things off, here's an example I tried to help with over the
weekend. A Quarry user was adapting a query they had used before to
find non-redirect File namespace pages not paired with binary files on
Commons. The query they had come up with was:
SELECT DISTINCT page_title, img_name
FROM (
SELECT DISTINCT page_title
FROM page WHERE page_namespace = 6
AND page_is_redirect = 0
) AS page
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT DISTINCT img_name
FROM image
) AS image ON page_title=img_name
WHERE img_name IS NULL;
The performance of this is horrible for several reasons including the
excessive use of DISTINCT. The query was consistently killed by the 30
minute runtime limit. MaxSem and I both came up with about the same
optimization that eliminated the sub-queries and use of DISTINCT:
SELECT page_title, img_name
FROM page LEFT OUTER JOIN image ON page_title=img_name
WHERE page_namespace = 6
AND page_is_redirect = 0
AND img_name IS NULL;
This new query is not fast in any sense of the word, but it does
finish without timing out. There is still some debate about whether
the 906 rows it returned are correct or not [2].
[0]: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Developer_Summit
[1]: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T149624
[2]: https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/14501
Bryan
--
Bryan Davis Wikimedia Foundation <bd808(a)wikimedia.org>
[[m:User:BDavis_(WMF)]] Sr Software Engineer Boise, ID USA
irc: bd808 v:415.839.6885 x6855
_______________________________________________
Labs-l mailing list
Labs-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/labs-l
We're starting to wrap up the calendar year, here's what we've accomplished
so far with Wikistats. We're really excited to have some data in our
production Hive database for people to play with. We worked really hard to
clean up and present an intuitive interface to all of mediawiki history.
The results are captured in the tables mentioned below, which we'll cover
more in an upcoming tech talk. Documentation for the project is here
<https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Analytics/Data_Lake>.
Our goals so far and progress breakdown:
1. [done] Build pipeline to process and analyze *pageview* data
2. [done] Load pageview data into an *API*
3. [ ] *Sanitize* pageview data with more dimensions for public
consumption
4. [ beta] Build pipeline to process and analyze *editing* data
5. [ beta] Load editing data into an *API*
6. [ ] *Sanitize* editing data for public consumption
7. [ ] *Design* UI to organize dashboards built around new data
8. [ ] Build enough *dashboards* to replace the main functionality
of stats.wikipedia.org
9. [ ] Officially Replace stats.wikipedia.org with *(maybe)
analytics.wikipedia.org
<http://analytics.wikipedia.org/>*
***. [ ] Bonus: *replace dumps generation* based on the new data
pipelines
4 & 5. Since our last update, we've finished the pipeline that imports
data from mediawiki databases, cleans it up as best as possible, reshapes
it in a analytics-friendly way, and makes it easily queryable. I'm marking
these goals as "beta" because we're still tweaking the algorithm for
performance and productionizing the jobs. This will be completed early
next quarter, but in the meantime we have data for people to play with
internally. Sadly we haven't sanitized it yet so we can't publish it. For
those with internal access:
* https://pivot.wikimedia.org/#edit-history-test is the full history across
all wikis. It's a bit hard to understand how to slice and dice, so we will
host a tech talk and present it at the January metrics meeting if we can.
* In hive, you can access this data in the wmf database, the tables are:
- wmf.mediawiki_history: denormalized full history with this schema
<https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Analytics/Data_Lake/Mediawiki_history>
- wmf.mediawiki_page_history: the sequence of states of each wiki page (
schema
<https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Analytics/Data_Lake/Mediawiki_page_hist…>
)
- wmf.mediawiki_user_history: the sequence of states of each user
account (schema
<https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Analytics/Data_Lake/Mediawiki_user_hist…>
)
6. Sanitizing has not moved forward, as we need DBA time and they've been
overloaded. We will attempt to restart this effort in Q3.
7. We have begun the design process, we'll share more about this as we go.
Our goals and planning for next quarter support us finishing 4, 5, 7, and
8, so basically putting a UI on top of the data pipeline we have in place,
and updating it weekly. We also hope to have good progress on 6, but that
depends on collaboration with the DBA team and is harder than we originally
imagined.
And remember, voice your opinions about important reports in the current
Wikistats here:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Analytics/Wikistats/DumpReports/Future_per_r…
(thank you so so much to the many people who already chimed in).
Thank you for your questions, Jan.
> Is this on questions on Wikipedia Articles which ask for an
> estimate of good, neutral or bad assertions (or generally
> sentiments) about a subject?
After the Signpost ran a blurb last month on research successfully
predicting company stock price changes using pageviews (confirming
similar work from 2013), I tried to find anyone using the textual
substance of edits to do the same thing. I found this:
http://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/882612
It produces small but consistently positive correlations between
companies' article edit summaries classified by the text sentiment
model which ships with Wolfram Mathematica and their daily stock price
changes. The significance is low, in part because using sentiment of
edit summaries is a very naive approach. So I wonder if anyone has
tried to train a sentiment analysis model to address the task directly
with full diffs.
> Or are you more interested in the subject of lobbyism and
> company directed edits and the like?
I'm more interested in identifying organized advocacy, and I suspect
such models would help with that, too, especially if brand product
articles are included along with companies.
2016-12-01 4:12 GMT+01:00 James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com>:
>
> Who, if anyone, is examining crowdsource survey
> questions such as, "Look at the text added or
> removed in this edit to [Company]'s Wikipedia
> article. Was the editor saying [ ] good things, [ ]
> bad things, or [ ] was neutral about [Company]'s
> financial prospects?"?
Hi James,
Just to understand better what you are interested in –
Is this on questions on Wikipedia Articles which ask for an estimate of
good, neutral or bad assertions (or generally sentiments) about a subject?
Or are you more interested in the subject of lobbyism and company directed
edits and the like?
Jan
2016-12-01 4:12 GMT+01:00 James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com>:
> Who, if anyone, is examining crowdsource survey
> questions such as, "Look at the text added or
> removed in this edit to [Company]'s Wikipedia
> article. Was the editor saying [ ] good things, [ ]
> bad things, or [ ] was neutral about [Company]'s
> financial prospects?"?
>
> Best regards,
> Jim
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
--
Jan Dittrich
UX Design/ User Research
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Phone: +49 (0)30 219 158 26-0
http://wikimedia.de
Imagine a world, in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. That‘s our commitment.
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
Who, if anyone, is examining crowdsource survey
questions such as, "Look at the text added or
removed in this edit to [Company]'s Wikipedia
article. Was the editor saying [ ] good things, [ ]
bad things, or [ ] was neutral about [Company]'s
financial prospects?"?
Best regards,
Jim