If you run WikiTrust on a dump, and you compute the &quot;statistics&quot;, this gives you, for each revision, a score between -1 and +1, where: <div><ul><li>-1 = perfectly reverted</li><li>0 = heavily modified</li><li>+1 = perfectly preserved</li>

</ul><div>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. </div>

<div><br></div><div>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). </div>

<div><br></div><div>But at least, it could be a quick start?  And more could be built on that? </div><div><br></div><div>Luca</div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Said Hamideh <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:said.hamideh@mindbounce.com">said.hamideh@mindbounce.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>

<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">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. <div>

<div></div><div class="h5"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Joseph Reagle <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:reagle@mit.edu" target="_blank">reagle@mit.edu</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">



<div>On Friday 06 November 2009, Said Hamideh wrote:<br>
&gt; Joseph, as someone who doesn&#39;t follow every discussion in this thread, I am<br>
&gt; curious as to how you are defining &quot;productive&quot;?<br>
<br>
</div>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.<br>




<div><div></div><div><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Wiki-research-l mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org" target="_blank">Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l" target="_blank">https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Wiki-research-l mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org">Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l" target="_blank">https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>