- -1 = perfectly reverted
- 0 = heavily modified
- +1 = perfectly preserved
It also tells you how big the change was. So, if you wanted to run this analysis on a dump, it would be failry trivial and fast (say, half a day for the Italian wikipedia? One day for the German one?). We would be happy to provide the details.
Of course, this would just give you a measure of how much of each contribution is kept. It would not tell you much about the intellectual contribution -- your adding a date for an event, will be judges as much as a bot adding a new category to the revision (both 1-word changes).
But at least, it could be a quick start? And more could be built on that?
Luca
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Said Hamideh
<said.hamideh@mindbounce.com> wrote:
I skipped over the part where you started by talking about bots. Sorry I was just thinking about the beautiful intellectual productivity that arises from revert wars between two human beings, at least for me.
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Joseph Reagle
<reagle@mit.edu> wrote:
On Friday 06 November 2009, Said Hamideh wrote:
> Joseph, as someone who doesn't follow every discussion in this thread, I am
> curious as to how you are defining "productive"?
Yes, it requires some synthetic variable, of which there are a few in the quant literature. (For example, Priedhorsky et al. defined a damaged article view (DAV).) However, it could be something as simple as what Spinellis and Louridas (2008) imply: a reversion is evidence of an unproductive contribution (ignoring revert wars for the moment), and so what percentage of all edits to WP are reverts? Has this changed over time.
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l