Some of the findings there seem slightly ..off. Yes, IPs are more likely to show up on the talk pages of semi-protected articles - because all of their article edits have to be cleared through there.
On Tuesday, 16 December 2014, Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil@anu.edu.au> wrote:
Hi
On the question of location of disputes I wrote a blog post a few years ago:
"Auray et al. identify several factors which contribute to conflictuality, such as the number of participants, the location of disputes, and the identity choices of participants. The larger the number of contributors, the more likely discussion is; the threshold number seems to be eight. When there are more than ten participants, discussion increasingly moves to the talk pages of users, and is more likely to degenerate into insults. A surefire indicator of fights are references to policy pages. These can be statistically measured: research by Kriplean and Beschastnikh has shown that pages with more than 250 posts had 51% of the links towards policy pages.
There are two main types of articles where conflicts erupt: first, the usual suspects are topics with burning current affairs value involving inter-ethnic or inter-faith conflicts; second, “scientific” categories with low academic legitimacy such as homeopathy and chiropraxy are strong conflict zones. Suspected “sock-puppetry” (fake identity) is also a source of conflict; an attenuated version of this being the lack of regard for people who have not registered on the site and instead just use an IP address: more than half of the text inserted by “IPs” is deleted, and they are more likely to be present in semi-protected articles which is where disputes and insults typically occur. IPs are also more likely to insult others, so there are suspicions that IPs are registereds users who use “socks” to engage in insulting behaviour which they would not dare to do under their registered identities."
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/wikipedia-and-conflict/2009/07/07
cheers
Mathieu
________________________________________
From: wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org <wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org> on behalf of wiki-research-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org <wiki-research-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 23:01
To: wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 112, Issue 24
Send Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to
wiki-research-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
wiki-research-l-owner@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. Re: commentary on Wikipedia's community behaviour (Aaron gets
a quote) (mjn)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:28:30 +0100
From: mjn <mjn@anadrome.org>
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
<wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] commentary on Wikipedia's community
behaviour (Aaron gets a quote)
Message-ID: <87k31si55a.fsf@mjn.anadrome.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Perhaps it depends on what part of the encyclopedia? Has anyone
attempted to characterize how the editing environment varies with
different subject matter? I often run across descriptions that don't
comport with either my experience, or that of people I've interviewed,
but it's hard to tell precisely why. I've encountered quite different
beliefs about what the en.wikipedia community is like, even among people
who to me seem to otherwise have a similar background.
Entirely anecdotally, areas of interest seem to be one correlated
factor. For example, writing an article on an archaeological site (one
thing I've mentored new editors in doing) is by and large trouble-free
and friendly, in my experience. But some other areas are not. I haven't
attempted to characterize that factor in any detail.
-Mark
WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers@gmail.com> writes:
> We have problems, I don't dispute that. But "ugly and bitter as 4chan"? That has to be an exaggeration.
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan Cardy
>
>
>> On 13 Dec 2014, at 01:03, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I certainly hope you're right Sydney. What a horrible mess.
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Sydney Poore <sydney.poore@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think feminists, especially those who take an interest in STEM, will pass this article around.
>>>
>>> Sydney
>>>
>>>> On Dec 12, 2014 5:35 PM, "Andrew Lih" <andrew.lih@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> It's a good piece, but honestly I think only the dedicated tech reader will make it through the entire story. There's a lot of jargon and insider intrigue such that I could imagine most people never making past the typewriter barf of "BLP, AGF, NOR" :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@alk.edu.pl> wrote:
>>>>> While I agree that the article is overly negative (likely because of the individual experience), I think it still points to an important problem. I don't perceive this article as really problematic in terms of image. Maybe naively, I imagine that people will not stop donating because the community is not ideal.
>>>>>
>>>>> pundit
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> There’s a saying that everyone likes to eat sausages but nobody likes to know how they are made. It is not good to have negative publicity like that during the annual donation campaign (irrespective of the motivations of the journalist and/or the rights/wrongs of the issue being reported, neither of which I intend to debate here). As a donation-funded organisation, public perception matters a lot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kerry
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Jonathan Morgan [mailto:jmorgan@wikimedia.org]
>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, 13 December 2014 6:43 AM
>>>>>> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>>>>>> Cc: Kerry Raymond
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] commentary on Wikipedia's community behaviour (Aaron gets a quote)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I mostly agree. On one hand, it's always nice to see a detailed description of how wiki-sausage gets made in a major venue. On the other, this journalist clearly has a personal axe to grind, and used his bully pulpit to grind it in public.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - J
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1000th addition to the inconsequential rant genre.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nemo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>>>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jonathan T. Morgan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Community Research Lead
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> User:Jmorgan (WMF)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> jmorgan@wikimedia.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>>>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> __________________________
>>>>> prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
>>>>> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
>>>>> i centrum badawczego CROW
>>>>> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
>>>>> http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
>>>>>
>>>>> członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
>>>>> członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
>>>>>
>>>>> Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
>>>>>
>>>>> Recenzje
>>>>> Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
>>>>> Pacific Standard: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
>>>>> Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
>>>>> The Wikipedian: http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
Sent with my mu4e
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
End of Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 112, Issue 24
************************************************
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
Sent from my mobile computing device of Lovecraftian complexity and horror.