There is a long-standing tool to search them at
https://sigma.toolforge.org/summary.py?name=Stuartyeates&search=re-revie...
In case you're looking for code to reuse.
cheers stuart -- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 at 05:38, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Isaac,
I'm not aware of any research on this. But there are a couple of common assumptions that you could check as part of any research.
- One of the reasons why any suggestion that we make edit summaries
compulsory is that as long as they are optional, blank edit summaries are a great way to identify vandals. 2. There is also a certain amount of "sneaky vandalism" denoted by edits that get reverted or reverted and the perpetrators get warned for vandalism or blocked as a "vandalism only account" 3. Though we admins have the technology to blank people's edit summaries it is very rarely used
Regards Jonathan
On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 16:20, Isaac Johnson isaac@wikimedia.org wrote:
Does anyone know of any research or statistics around edit summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Edit_summary usage on Wikipedia? All I could find in a quick scan was some statistics from 2010 ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Usage_of_edit_summary_on_Wikipedia). I'm curious if anyone has more updated statistics, or, even better: a more thorough analysis of how edit summaries are used by editors -- i.e. how complete they are, to what degree they represent the "what" vs. the "why", how often they are misleading, etc.
Best, Isaac
-- Isaac Johnson (he/him/his) -- Research Scientist -- Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org