Thanks Nemo, I'll re-read that discussion. I think that conversation is where I became
tentative of using bytes or edit counts.
Aaron, in my own search I also noticed you wrote with Geiger. About counting edit hour and
edit sessions. [1] Calculating content persistence is a bit too heavyweight for me right
now since I am trying to submit to ACM Web Science in 2 weeks (hose CFP was just on this
list). The technique looks great though, and I would like to help support making a WMFlabs
tool that can return this measure.
It seems like I could calculate approximate edit-hours from just looking at
Special:Contributions timestamps. Is that correct? Would you suggest this route?
[1]
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/Using_Edit_Sessions_to_Mea…
Maximilian Klein
Wikipedian in Residence, OCLC
+17074787023
________________________________
From: wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org> on behalf of Aaron Halfaker
<aaron.halfaker(a)gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 7:12 AM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Preexsiting Researchers on Metrics for Users?
Hey Max,
There's a class of metrics that might be relevant to your purposes. I refer to them
as "content persistence" metrics and wrote up some docs about how they work
including an example. See
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Content_persistence.
I gathered a list of papers below to provide a starting point. I've included links to
open access versions where I could. These metrics are a little bit painful to compute due
to the computational complexity of diffs, but I have some hardware to throw at the problem
and another project that's bringing me in this direction, so I'd be interested in
collaborating.
Priedhorsky, Reid, et al. "Creating, destroying, and restoring value in
Wikipedia." Proceedings of the 2007 international ACM conference on Supporting group
work. ACM, 2007.
http://reidster.net/pubs/group282-priedhorsky.pdf:
* Describes "Persistent word views" which is a measure of value added per
editor. (IMO, value actualized)
B. Thomas Adler, Krishnendu Chatterjee, Luca de Alfaro, Marco Faella, Ian Pye, and
Vishwanath Raman. 2008. Assigning trust to Wikipedia content. In Proceedings of the 4th
International Symposium on Wikis (WikiSym '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, , Article 26 ,
12 pages.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.141.2047&rep=r…
* Describes a complex strategy for assigning trustworthiness to content based on
implicit review. See
http://wikitrust.soe.ucsc.edu/
Halfaker, A., Kittur, A., Kraut, R., & Riedl, J. (2009, October). A jury of your
peers: quality, experience and ownership in Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 5th
International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (p. 15). ACM.
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/A_Jury_of_Your_Peers/halfa…
* Describes the use of "Persistent word revisions per word" as a measure of
article contribution quality.
Halfaker, A., Kittur, A., & Riedl, J. (2011, October). Don't bite the newbies: how
reverts affect the quantity and quality of Wikipedia work. In Proceedings of the 7th
International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (pp. 163-172). ACM.
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/Don't_Bite_the_Newbies…
* Describes the use of raw "Persistent work revisions" as a measure of
editor productivity
* Looking back on the study, I think I'd rather use log(# of revisions a word
persists) * words.
-Aaron
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 1:48 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
<nemowiki@gmail.com<mailto:nemowiki@gmail.com>> wrote:
Sort of related, an ongoing education@ discussion "student evaluation criteria".
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.education/854
Nemo
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l