Hi all-
One more thing: on twitter, I was advised that this list and the wikicite
google group were the best places to discuss research around citations.
Although I would like to post about this line of inquiry to the wikicite
group, it appears to be a private group. As an outsider, I have not been
able to access/view the group content/or even see who owns the group and is
the correct person to contact. I have mentioned that I can not access the
group to the wikicite twitter handle, and received a 'like' (?) but no
response, and nothing has changed.
If you are a member of both lists, would you be willing to point to this
thread from the wikicite group? If the group is not open to the public, at
least the ideas will be there.
Many thanks,
Greg
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:01 AM <
wiki-research-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Send Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to
wiki-research-l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
wiki-research-l-owner(a)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. sockpuppets and how to find them sooner (Kerry Raymond)
2. Re: sockpuppets and how to find them sooner (Kerry Raymond)
3. Re: sockpuppets and how to find them sooner (RhinosF1)
4. Re: gender balance of wikipedia citations (Greg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 15:57:15 +1000
From: "Kerry Raymond" <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com>
To: "'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'"
<wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Wiki-research-l] sockpuppets and how to find them sooner
Message-ID: <001b01d55977$9f51dbe0$ddf593a0$(a)gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Currently, to open a sockpuppet investigation, you must name the two (or
more) accounts that you believe to be sockpuppets with "clear, behavioural
evidence of sock puppetry" which is typically in the form of pairs of edits
that demonstrate similar edit behaviours that are unlikely to naturally
occur. Now if you spend enough time on-wiki, you develop an intuition about
behaviours you see on your watchlist and in article edit histories. Often I
am highly suspicious that an account is a sockpuppet, but I cannot report
them because I don't know which other account is involved.
As a example, I recently encounted User:Shelati an account about 1 day old
at that time with nearly 100 edits in that day all about 1-2 minutes apart,
mostly making a similar change to a large number of Australian place
infoboxes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Shelati
<
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Shelati&am…
fset=20190728053057&limit=100&target=Shelati
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Shelati&offset=20190728053057&limit=100&target=Shelati>
&offset=20190728053057&limit=100&target=Shelati
Genuine new users do not edit that quickly, do not use templates and do not
mess structurally with infoboxes (at most they try to change the values).
It
"smelled" like a sockpuppet. However, as I did not recognise that pattern
of
edit behaviour as being that of any other user I was familiar with, it
wasn't something I could report for sockpuppet investigation. Anyhow after
about 2 weeks, the user was blocked as a sockpuppet. Someone must have
noticed and figured out the other account:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Meganesia/
Archive
Two weeks and 1,279 edits later . that's over 1000 possibly problematic
edits after I first suspected them. But that's nothing compared with
another
ongoing situation in which a very large number of different IPs are engaged
in a pattern of problem edits on mostly Australian articles (a few
different
types of edits but an obvious "quack like a duck" situation). The IP number
changes frequently (and one assumes deliberately). The edits potentially go
back to 2013 but appear to have intensified in 2018/2019. Here's one user's
summary of all the IP addresses involved, and the extent to which they have
been cleaned up, given many thousands of edits are involved, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:IamNotU/History_cleanup
As well as the damage done to the content (which harms the readers), these
IP sockpuppets are consuming enormous amounts of effort to track them down
and revert them, which could be more productively used to improve the
content. We need better tools to foil these pests. So I want to put that
challenge out to this list.
Kerry
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 16:26:43 +1000
From: "Kerry Raymond" <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com>
To: "'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'"
<wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] sockpuppets and how to find them sooner
Message-ID: <002001d5597b$bd1f6b20$375e4160$(a)gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To reply to my own question .
Can we find a way to create a "signature" of an account's pattern of
editing? Perhaps it might be a set of signatures, maybe one for the
categories that the account appears to be active in, another for the type
of
edit, etc. Then if these signatures were calculated for all banned accounts
or currently blocked accounts (or at least ones with a long enough
contribution history to make it worthwhile - we're not interested in
one-edit vandals), then we could have a tool that could be run to quickly
compare one account against the signatures of banned/blocked accounts as
well as the cumulative edits of a set of known sockpuppets (i.e. treat them
as a single account) to determine if this may be a sockpuppet case meriting
further investigation. I imagine that it would be too expensive
computationally to actually run comparisons of the contribution histories
of
all "bad guy" accounts against the suspicious account which is why I
propose
a "signature" approach (but I'm happy to be told otherwise).
If we had such a tool and it proves reasonably reliable in identifying
likely sockpuppets (not asking for guarantees but close enough not to be a
waste of time to investigate), then we could routinely use it on new
accounts or reactivating accounts (i.e. possible sleeper accounts) once
they
have a long enough editing history to enable the tool to operate
effectively
to provide automated early warning of new/reactivating accounts appearing
suspiciously similar to "bad guy" accounts.
But this is a hard problem, both technically and socially (Assume Good
Faith, Privacy, etc), so I welcome the thoughts of others.
Kerry
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 07:43:29 +0100
From: RhinosF1 <rhinosf1(a)gmail.com>
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
<wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>rg>, kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] sockpuppets and how to find them sooner
Message-ID:
<CAK3HvEMj8VCPu+uVUmPW+RepJ6E-OULaLPA15ALv9C=
N9-jCEA(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Just a note that you can still go through warnings for vandalism etc. and
report to AIV.
Or at that edit speed, you may have a chance at AN at reporting for
bot-like edits which will draw attention to the account.
If you ever need help, things like #wikipedia-en-help on Freenode IRC exist
so you can ask other users.
RhinosF1
Miraheze Volunteer
On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 06:57, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Currently, to open a sockpuppet investigation,
you must name the two (or
more) accounts that you believe to be sockpuppets with "clear,
behavioural
evidence of sock puppetry" which is
typically in the form of pairs of
edits
that demonstrate similar edit behaviours that are
unlikely to naturally
occur. Now if you spend enough time on-wiki, you develop an intuition
about
behaviours you see on your watchlist and in
article edit histories.
Often I
> am highly suspicious that an account is a sockpuppet, but I cannot report
> them because I don't know which other account is involved.
> As a example, I recently
encounted User:Shelati an account about 1 day
old
at that time with nearly 100 edits in that day
all about 1-2 minutes
apart,
> mostly making a similar change to a large number of Australian place
> infoboxes.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Shelati
> <
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Shelati&am…
fset=20190728053057&limit=100&target=Shelati
<
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Shelati&am…
>
> &offset=20190728053057&limit=100&target=Shelati
> Genuine new users do not edit
that quickly, do not use templates and do
not
mess structurally with infoboxes (at most they
try to change the values).
It
"smelled" like a sockpuppet. However, as I did not recognise that pattern
of
edit behaviour as being that of any other user I was familiar with, it
wasn't something I could report for sockpuppet investigation. Anyhow
after
> about 2 weeks, the user was blocked as a sockpuppet. Someone must have
> noticed and figured out the other account:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Meganesia/
> Archive
> Two weeks and 1,279 edits later
. that's over 1000 possibly problematic
> edits after I first suspected them. But that's nothing compared with
> another
> ongoing situation in which a very large number of different IPs are
engaged
in a pattern of problem edits on mostly
Australian articles (a few
different
types of edits but an obvious "quack like a duck" situation). The IP
number
changes frequently (and one assumes
deliberately). The edits potentially
go
back to 2013 but appear to have intensified in
2018/2019. Here's one
user's
summary of all the IP addresses involved, and the
extent to which they
have
> been cleaned up, given many thousands of edits are involved, see:
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:IamNotU/History_cleanup
> As well as the damage done to
the content (which harms the readers),
these
IP sockpuppets are consuming enormous amounts of
effort to track them
down
> and revert them, which could be more productively used to improve the
> content. We need better tools to foil these pests. So I want to put that
> challenge out to this list.
> Kerry
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
RhinosF1
Miraheze Volunteer
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 00:01:15 -0700
From: Greg <thenatureprogram(a)gmail.com>
To: wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of wikipedia citations
Message-ID:
<
CAOO9DNsEdTiZQFuv3zKdYEudpW76iCo_qpq1cYFBM8AHO4gArw(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Wow, Kerry! Thank you for taking the time to write all these thoughts out.
I'm asking the question because I'm concerned that the gender balance of
the authors being cited on wikipedia is different from the already quite
bad patterns in academia. My fear is that the citation gender imbalance on
Wikipedia is more pronounced. If so, it is not just perpetuating the
problem, but making it worse by surfacing certain authors and ideas even
more frequently, or hardly at all. I would like to know if this is the
case, and if so, how big the effect is.
In my last message, I mention a study about a set of award-winning
political science books (the researchers study the citation gender
imbalance for that set). I just saw this study today, but I began to think
that it/the set of works--or some similar set of titles--could possibly be
a good place to begin, especially if the original researchers were willing
to share the list of titles/authors/gender/etc that they put
together/worked with. Then it seems it would mostly be a matter of figuring
out how to understand how those titles are cited on Wikipedia--through
either the citation dataset or wikicite--to see if/how the citation
patterns differ (i.e., if the works by women/men are cited more
frequently/at the same rate/less frequently on Wikipedia than what the
researchers found in the original study).
This seems like it would be easier to do than what you propose, but perhaps
the idea is not sound. Until very recently, I thought I could find the
answer in an existing paper! I honestly don't know the best way to get the
answer, but I would like to know the answer and think it's important to
look at.
All of the things you bring up--from the gender of the editor, to the type
of editing being done, to the issues around multiple authors/paywalls/year
of publication/field--complicate the inquiry, and in particular a larger
one. I agree with what you say about doing something small first to see
what's there.
Thanks again for all your thoughts.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 9:41 PM <
wiki-research-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> Send Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to
> wiki-research-l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> You can reach the person managing the
list at
> wiki-research-l-owner(a)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: gender balance of wikipedia
citations (Greg)
> 2. Re: gender balance of wikipedia citations (Kerry Raymond)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 18:47:48 -0700
> From: Greg <thenatureprogram(a)gmail.com>
> To: wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of wikipedia citations
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAOO9DNvBrw_aLkRUp5kYFLdaLJUEK+ddiz-A09MZwiotAdAmUw(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Hi Leila,
> Thanks for your thoughts.
> Having just read Troy Vettese's
very powerful essay, Sexism in the
Academy
> (
>
https://nplusonemag.com/issue-34/essays/sexism-in-the-academy/), I wish
> this were a top priority.
> I stumbled upon a study today--it
came up in the Washington Post's
> excellent series on gender bias in political science. The authors look
at a
> set of award winning political science books and the gender imbalance in
> the citations drawn from google scholar. I'm linking the piece here in
> case anyone on this list is interested now, or in the future, in how the
> patterns on Wikipedia compare.
> Washington Post piece: "There’s
a gender gap in who wins political
science
> book awards – and in how widely they’re cited"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/22/theres-gender-gap-who-wi…
"Just as significantly, women’s
award-winning books receive fewer
scholarly
citations than men’s award-winning volumes — and
this disparity has
grown,
rather than shrunk, in recent years. Over the
entire period, APSA
award-winning volumes by women averaged 43 percent fewer citations per
year
> than those by male authors."
> Paper: "Winning awards and
gaining recognition: An impact analysis of
APSA
> section book prizes"
>
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0362331918300867
> Best,
> Greg
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 3:44 PM <
> wiki-research-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
> > Send Wiki-research-l mailing
list submissions to
> > wiki-research-l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> > You can reach the person
managing the list at
> > wiki-research-l-owner(a)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: gender balance of
wikipedia citations (Greg)
> > 2. Re: gender balance of wikipedia citations (Leila Zia)
> > 3. Wikimania 2019 disinformation meetup follow-up (Leila Zia)
> > 4. Upcoming Research Newsletter (special issue on gender gap
> > research): New papers open for review (Mohammed Sadat Abdulai)
>
>
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 09:57:15 -0700
> > From: Greg <thenatureprogram(a)gmail.com>
> > To: wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of wikipedia citations
> > Message-ID:
> > <CAOO9DNuSYzzaVwcdqiWA7pj671z3N43XOSwv6DtW0SxWg=
> > L8GQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> > Hi Kerry,
> > Those are all very interesting ways to look at this. I was thinking
> mostly
> > along the lines of your first bullet point, but I'd be interested in
> > research in any of those areas.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Greg
>
> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at
5:00 AM <
> > wiki-research-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Send Wiki-research-l
mailing list submissions to
> > > wiki-research-l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > > You can reach the
person managing the list at
> > > wiki-research-l-owner(a)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. gender
balance of wikipedia citations (Greg)
> > > 2. Re: gender balance of wikipedia citations (Kerry Raymond)
> >
> >
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > Message: 1
> > > Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 20:19:18 -0700
> > > From: Greg <thenatureprogram(a)gmail.com>
> > > To: wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Subject: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of wikipedia citations
> > > Message-ID:
> > > <
> > > CAOO9DNtY+oDO5oQrMZeG1NZE-kYNYLWnTD6acHeYTbYeGk8k2Q(a)mail.gmail.com>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > > Greetings!
> >
> > > I was looking for
information about the gender balance of Wikipedia
> > > citations and no one I've asked knows of any work on this topic. Do
> you?
> >
> > > I think this is
an important question.
> >
> > > Here's what
I've learned so far:
> >
> > > Wikipedia
citations are currently in the form of text strings. There
is
> > > also an initiative to place citations in an annotated structured
> > repository
> > > (wikicite). I do not know the current status of wikicite or if/when
> this
> > > could be used for this inquiry--either to examine all, or a sensible
> > subset
> > > of the citations.
> >
> > > My perspective is
that understanding the gender balance is necessary
> and
> > > urgent. The balance could be better, the same, or worse than the
> citation
> > > balances we already know, and the scale of the effect is quite large.
> >
> > > Is this a line of
inquiry that the wikimedia/wikicite community is
> > > interested in pursuing? If so, what is the best way to get started?
> Does
> > > the WMF have the resources and interest to look into this matter
> inhouse?
> >
> > > Thanks for your
thoughts.
> >
> > > Greg
> >
> >
> > > ------------------------------
> >
> > > Message: 2
> > > Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 13:53:45 +1000
> > > From: "Kerry Raymond" <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com>
> > > To: "'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'"
> > > <wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of wikipedia citations
> > > Message-ID: <00ed01d5589d$33e31ed0$9ba95c70$(a)gmail.com>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > > Could you
elaborate a bit more on what you mean by the gender balance
> of
> > > citations?
> >
> > > Are you talking
about:
> >
> > > * proportion of
male vs female authors of the source material used as
> > > citations in arbitrary articles>
> > > * the quality/quantity of citations in biography articles of men vs
> > women?
> > > * the quality/quantity of citations in articles that are gendered by
> some
> > > other criteria (e.g. reader interest, romantic comedy vs action
film)?
> >
> > > Kerry
> >
> > > -----Original
Message-----
> > > From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:
> > wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org]
> > > On Behalf Of Greg
> > > Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2019 1:19 PM
> > > To: wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Subject: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of wikipedia citations
> >
> > > Greetings!
> >
> > > I was looking for
information about the gender balance of Wikipedia
> > > citations and no one I've asked knows of any work on this topic. Do
> you?
> >
> > > I think this is
an important question.
> >
> > > Here's what
I've learned so far:
> >
> > > Wikipedia
citations are currently in the form of text strings. There
is
> > > also an initiative to place citations in an annotated structured
> > repository
> > > (wikicite). I do not know the current status of wikicite or if/when
> this
> > > could be used for this inquiry--either to examine all, or a sensible
> > subset
> > > of the citations.
> >
> > > My perspective is
that understanding the gender balance is necessary
> and
> > > urgent. The balance could be better, the same, or worse than the
> citation
> > > balances we already know, and the scale of the effect is quite large.
> >
> > > Is this a line of
inquiry that the wikimedia/wikicite community is
> > > interested in pursuing? If so, what is the best way to get started?
> Does
> > > the WMF have the resources and interest to look into this matter
> inhouse?
> >
> > > Thanks for your
thoughts.
> >
> > > Greg
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> > >
------------------------------
> >
> > > Subject: Digest
Footer
> >
> > >
_______________________________________________
> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> >
> > > ------------------------------
> >
> > > End of
Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 168, Issue 11
> > > ************************************************
> >
>
>
> >
------------------------------
>
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 10:43:51 -0700
> > From: Leila Zia <leila(a)wikimedia.org>
> > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> > <wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of wikipedia citations
> > Message-ID:
> > <CAK0Oe2uCo70_=ma2b=2d+fvr4GseEVxOP0sh=
> > ELNOpKdCuUfqA(a)mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> > Hi Greg,
>
> > A few comments if
you're going to go with "proportion of male vs
> > female authors of the source material used as citations in arbitrary
> > articles":
>
> > * Please differentiate
between sex (female, male, ...) and gender
> > (woman, man, ...). My understanding from your initial email is that
> > you want to stay focused on gender, not sex.
>
> > * Unless you have reliable
sources about the gender of an author, I
> > would not recommend trying to predict what the gender is. (As you may
> > know, this is not uncommon in social media studies, for example, to
> > predict the gender of the author based on their image or their name.
> > These approaches introduce biases and social challenges.)
>
> > * Re your question about
whether WMF has resources to look into this
> > question in-house: I can't speak for the whole of WMF, however, I can
> > share more about the Research team's direction. As part of our future
> > work, we would like to "help contributors monitor violations of core
> > content policies and assess information reliability and bias both
> > granularly and at scale". [1] The question you proposed can fall under
> > assessing bias in content (considering citations as part of the
> > content). I expect us to focus first on the piece about violations of
> > core content policies and information reliability and come back to the
> > bias question later. As a result, we won't have bandwidth to do your
> > proposal in-house at the moment. Sorry about that.
>
> > I hope this helps.
>
> > Best,
> > Leila
>
> > [1] Section 2 of our
Knowledge Integrity whitepaper:
>
>
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Knowledge_Integrity_-_W…
>
>
> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 9:57 AM Greg
<thenatureprogram(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Kerry,
> > > Those are all very interesting ways to look at this. I was thinking
> > mostly
> > > along the lines of your first bullet point, but I'd be interested in
> > > research in any of those areas.
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Greg
> >
> > > On Thu, Aug 22,
2019 at 5:00 AM <
> > wiki-research-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > Send
Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to
> > > > wiki-research-l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
> > > > You can
reach the person managing the list at
> > > > wiki-research-l-owner(a)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.
gender balance of wikipedia citations (Greg)
> > > > 2. Re: gender balance of wikipedia citations (Kerry Raymond)
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > >
Message: 1
> > > > Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 20:19:18 -0700
> > > > From: Greg <thenatureprogram(a)gmail.com>
> > > > To: wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Subject: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of wikipedia citations
> > > > Message-ID:
> > > > <
> > > > CAOO9DNtY+oDO5oQrMZeG1NZE-kYNYLWnTD6acHeYTbYeGk8k2Q(a)mail.gmail.com
> > > > Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> > >
> > > >
Greetings!
> > >
> > > > I was
looking for information about the gender balance of Wikipedia
> > > > citations and no one I've asked knows of any work on this topic.
Do
> > you?
> > >
> > > > I think
this is an important question.
> > >
> > > >
Here's what I've learned so far:
> > >
> > > >
Wikipedia citations are currently in the form of text strings.
There
is
> > > also an initiative to place citations in an annotated structured
> repository
> > > (wikicite). I do not know the current status of wikicite or if/when
> this
> > > could be used for this inquiry--either to examine all, or a
sensible
> > subset
> > > > of the citations.
> > >
> > > > My
perspective is that understanding the gender balance is
necessary
> and
> > > urgent. The balance could be better, the same, or worse than the
> citation
> > > balances we already know, and the scale of the effect is quite
large.
> > >
> > > > Is this
a line of inquiry that the wikimedia/wikicite community is
> > > > interested in pursuing? If so, what is the best way to get started?
> > Does
> > > > the WMF have the resources and interest to look into this matter
> > inhouse?
> > >
> > > > Thanks
for your thoughts.
> > >
> > > > Greg
> > >
> > >
> > > >
------------------------------
> > >
> > > >
Message: 2
> > > > Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 13:53:45 +1000
> > > > From: "Kerry Raymond" <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com>
> > > > To: "'Research into Wikimedia content and
communities'"
> > > > <wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of wikipedia
citations
> > > > Message-ID: <00ed01d5589d$33e31ed0$9ba95c70$(a)gmail.com>
> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> > >
> > > > Could
you elaborate a bit more on what you mean by the gender
balance
> > of
> > > > citations?
> > >
> > > > Are you
talking about:
> > >
> > > > *
proportion of male vs female authors of the source material used
as
> > > citations in arbitrary
articles>
> > > * the quality/quantity of citations in biography articles of men
vs
> women?
> > > * the quality/quantity of citations in articles that are gendered
by
> > some
> > > > other criteria (e.g. reader interest, romantic comedy vs action
> film)?
> > >
> > > > Kerry
> > >
> > > >
-----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:
> > wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org]
> > > > On Behalf Of Greg
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2019 1:19 PM
> > > > To: wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Subject: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of wikipedia citations
> > >
> > > >
Greetings!
> > >
> > > > I was
looking for information about the gender balance of Wikipedia
> > > > citations and no one I've asked knows of any work on this topic.
Do
> > you?
> > >
> > > > I think
this is an important question.
> > >
> > > >
Here's what I've learned so far:
> > >
> > > >
Wikipedia citations are currently in the form of text strings.
There
is
> > > also an initiative to place citations in an annotated structured
> repository
> > > (wikicite). I do not know the current status of wikicite or if/when
> this
> > > could be used for this inquiry--either to examine all, or a
sensible
> > subset
> > > > of the citations.
> > >
> > > > My
perspective is that understanding the gender balance is
necessary
> and
> > > urgent. The balance could be better, the same, or worse than the
> citation
> > > balances we already know, and the scale of the effect is quite
large.
> > >
> > > > Is this
a line of inquiry that the wikimedia/wikicite community is
> > > > interested in pursuing? If so, what is the best way to get started?
> > Does
> > > > the WMF have the resources and interest to look into this matter
> > inhouse?
> > >
> > > > Thanks
for your thoughts.
> > >
> > > > Greg
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > > Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > >
Subject: Digest Footer
> > >
> > > >
_______________________________________________
> > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > > Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > >
> > >
> > > >
------------------------------
> > >
> > > > End of
Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 168, Issue 11
> > > > ************************************************
> > >
> > >
_______________________________________________
> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
>
> >
------------------------------
>
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 13:36:17 -0700
> > From: Leila Zia <leila(a)wikimedia.org>
> > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> > <wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Wikimania 2019 disinformation meetup
> > follow-up
> > Message-ID:
> > <CAK0Oe2sodYJpkuhSqgo3dtfDr=
> > NQ5EK1TdH16F6BOkTyFho9Rg(a)mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> > Hi,
>
> > This message is for those
of you who attended the disinformation
> > meet-up [0] in Wikimania 2019 [1] or others who may be interested.
>
> > * The notes from our
meet-up are now posted in the bottom of the page
> [0].
>
> > * I was tasked to see if
space.wmflabs.org is the place for us to
> > continue conversations about this topic. The answer is yes. Thanks to
> > the help of Elena Lappen, we now have a dedicated subcategory for
> > disinformation:
> >
https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/c/research/disinformation . Feel
> > free to subscribe, watch, and/or post new topics if you're involved in
> > this space.
>
> > * If you are new to this
conversation, please read the purpose of the
> > subcategory at
>
https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/about-the-disinformation-category/949
> > and welcome! :)
>
> > Best,
> > Leila
>
> > [0]
https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Meetups/Disinformation
> > [1]
https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Program
>
>
>
> >
------------------------------
>
> > Message: 4
> > Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 22:43:53 +0000 (UTC)
> > From: Mohammed Sadat Abdulai <masssly(a)ymail.com>
> > To: Research Into Wikimedia Content and Communities
> > <wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Upcoming Research Newsletter (special issue
> > on gender gap research): New papers open for review
> > Message-ID: <1625269943.668598.1566513833343(a)mail.yahoo.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> > Hi everyone,
> > We’re preparing for the August 2019 research newsletter and looking for
> > contributors. Please take a look at
> >
https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/WRN201908 and add your name next to
any
paper you
are interested in covering. Our target publication date is on
31
August 11:59 UTC. As usual, short notes and
one-paragraph reviews are
most
> welcome.
> For the August edition, we are planning a special issue focusing
mainly
> > on recent gender gap/gender bias research. (Upcoming special issues
> topics
> > may include health and education.) There are about 20 papers from this
> area
> > on our todo list which will all be covered in the August issue, either
> as a
> > mere list item or - with your help - in form of a more informative
> writeup
> > or review. They include:
> > - Analyzing Gender Stereotyping in Bollywood Movies
>
> > - Breaking the glass
ceiling on Wikipedia| journal
>
> > - Breastfeeding,
Authority, and Genre: Women's Ethos in Wikipedia
and
> > Blogs
>
> > - Cyberfeminism on
Wikipedia: Visibility and deliberation in
feminist
> > Wikiprojects
>
> > - Gender and deletion on
Wikipedia
>
> > - Gender imbalance and
Wikipedia
>
> > - Gender Markers in
Wikipedia Usernames
>
> > - How do students trust
Wikipedia? An examination across genders
>
> > - Investigating the
Gender Pronoun Gap in Wikipedia
>
> > - It’s Not What You
Think: Gender Bias in Information about Fortune
> > 1000 CEOs on Wikipedia
>
> > - Mapping and Bridging
the Gender Gap: An Ethnographic Study of
Indian
> > Wikipedians and Their Motivations to Contribute
>
> > - People Who Can Take
It: How Women Wikipedians Negotiate and
Navigate
> > Safety
>
> > - Redressing Gender
Inequities on Wikipedia Through an Editathon
>
> > - Similar Gaps,
Different Origins? Women Readers and Editors at
Greek
> > Wikipedia
>
> > - Simulation Experiments
on (the Absence of) Ratings Bias in
> Reputation
> > Systems
>
> > - The Gendered
Presentation of Professions on Wikipedia
>
> > - Who Counts as a
Notable Sociologist on Wikipedia? Gender, Race,
and
> > the “Professor Test”
>
> > - Who Wants to Read
This?: A Method for Measuring Topical
> > Representativeness in User Generated Content Systems
>
> > - Women and Wikipedia.
Diversifying Editors and Enhancing Content
> > through Library Edit-a-Thons
>
> > Masssly and Tilman Bayer
>
> > [1] Research:Newsletter -
Meta[2] WikiResearch (@WikiResearch) on
Twitter
>
>
> > ------------------------------
>
> > Subject: Digest Footer
>
> >
_______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
> > ------------------------------
>
> > End of Wiki-research-l
Digest, Vol 168, Issue 12
> > ************************************************
>
>
------------------------------
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 14:41:09 +1000
> From: "Kerry Raymond" <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com>
> To: "'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'"
> <wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of wikipedia citations
> Message-ID: <001001d5596c$fe22a100$fa67e300$(a)gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> Yes, that was my thought. It would be
difficult to know the sex (or the
> gender) of an author name on a paper. There would inevitably be a lot
that
> you could not determine. And certainly in the sciences multi-author pages
> are the norm and even where you did know the sex/gender of all, do you
> assign some part-score? E.g. 0 for all male, 1 for all female, 0.6 for 3
> women and 2 men.
> But I am curious why you are asking
the question? That the
> writing/research of women is under-represented in Wikipedia citations? If
> so, without conducting any research, I'd say "yes it is
under-represented".
But my reason would be because women are
under-represented as
writers/researchers in the first place. And certainly the older the
source, the more likely it is to be written by a man. So to investigate
gender bias in citations in Wikipedia, you would have to estimate the
proportion of men/women (or at least their outputs) over time in a given
discipline and then ask the question, "taking into account of the time of
publication of a citation and the proportion of men/women active in this
discipline at that time, do Wikipedia citations show a sex/gender
basis?".
> Hmm ... very tricky.
> I'd be inclined to suggest
starting with a much simpler task. Pick a
> discipline (preferably one with a professional society who can tell your
> their estimate of current male/female ratio over (say) the past 5 years),
> limit the Wikipedia articles to topics in that discipline, and limit the
> citations to those published within the last 5 years. Indeed, perhaps
> limiting it to publications that are principally from the same country(s)
> as the professional society from which you get the data (as clearly
> men/women's participation in any discipline can vary with different
> countries for cultural reasons). Then you have some way to gauge whether
> Wikipedia is showing more or less gender bias in its citations than the
> discipline itself exhibits through publication. Quite a challenge!
> And of course, it is not Wikipedia
that adds citations. It is individual
> contributor who add citations. Does the sex/gender of the contributor
have
> any correlation to any observed bias? Again, the task is made more
> difficult because a lot of Wikipedians don't identify their sex/gender.
> The other thing to be alert to is the
difference in how (I believe)
> Wikipedians cite compared to researchers. As a researcher, I will of
course
be reading papers in my field all the time and
what I read will influence
my subsequent work. Therefore when I write about my research, my
citations
are referring to papers that I have already read
and whose authors may be
familiar to me from their other work, having met them at a conferences,
private correspondence, etc. However as a Wikipedian, I am only partially
operating that way (mostly when I write new articles or significantly
expand them, that is, when I am doing the research). A lot of the time I
am
adding citations relating to content other people
(often new users) have
added/changed without citation. These come up on my watchlist all the
time.
What do I do? Of course I could revert saying
"no citation provided", but
that's not the way to encourage new contributors nor to grow the
encyclopedia, so if the information seems plausible (not obviously
vandalism), I will attempt to find a citation for it (using tools like
Google and other topic-specialise search tools). This is what I call
"lucky
dip" mode of citing as obviously I have no
idea what the source was for
the
original contributor. The sources I find from my
search may not already
be
known to me (frequently they are not). Or to
summarise, IMHO, researchers
(or Wikipedians in "new content mode") cite a source already known to
them
and whose authors may be known to them and could
consciously or
unconsciously engage in some discrimination in citation based on
sex/gender
or other criteria, whereas Wikipedians in
"updating mode" are likely to
be
citing a source not previously known to them and
may be happy just to
have
found a source and are unlikely to be spending a
lot of their time
researching the authors of that source to be extent they could then
consciously or unconsciously exercise discrimination on sex/gender. If I
invest any extra effort in such a situations, it's probably because the
wording of the source is a close match to the Wikipedia article which
begs
the question of copyright violation (which needs
to be dealt with by
deletion or rewriting) or being a Wikipedia mirror (which is obviously
not
> an acceptable citation).
> So I suspect whether a citation was
added by the same contributor as the
> content it supports or a subsequent contributor probably makes a
difference
> to the likelihood of conscious/unconscious discrimination.
> Also, finally, often Wikipedia cites
web pages and other sources that do
> not have any individual authorship, e.g. government websites. Remember
that
Wikipedia prefers open citations over paywalled
citations and a lot of
the
> publications behind paywalls are individually authored.
> Your proposed research has a lot of
interesting challenges and a number
of
limitations. I'm not saying don't do it,
but I am saying start very small
and see if you can find any evidence to support your hypothesis before
embarking on a larger study. Because contributor behaviour is what you
are
trying to study, you probably need to do both
quantitative and
qualitative
> experiments. E.g. I have described the two modes of citation I do, but I
> cannot say how typical my behaviour is.
> Kerry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:
wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org]
> On Behalf Of Leila Zia
> Sent: Friday, 23 August 2019 3:44 AM
> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities <
> wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of wikipedia citations
> Hi Greg,
> A few comments if you're going to
go with "proportion of male vs female
> authors of the source material used as citations in arbitrary
> articles":
> * Please differentiate between sex
(female, male, ...) and gender (woman,
> man, ...). My understanding from your initial email is that you want to
> stay focused on gender, not sex.
> * Unless you have reliable sources
about the gender of an author, I would
> not recommend trying to predict what the gender is. (As you may know,
this
is not uncommon in social media studies, for
example, to predict the
gender
> of the author based on their image or their name.
> These approaches introduce biases and social challenges.)
> * Re your question about whether WMF
has resources to look into this
> question in-house: I can't speak for the whole of WMF, however, I can
share
more about the Research team's direction. As
part of our future work, we
would like to "help contributors monitor violations of core content
policies and assess information reliability and bias both granularly and
at
scale". [1] The question you proposed can
fall under assessing bias in
content (considering citations as part of the content). I expect us to
focus first on the piece about violations of core content policies and
information reliability and come back to the bias question later. As a
result, we won't have bandwidth to do your proposal in-house at the
moment.
> Sorry about that.
> I hope this helps.
> Best,
> Leila
> [1] Section 2 of our Knowledge
Integrity whitepaper:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Knowledge_Integrity_-_W…
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 9:57 AM Greg <thenatureprogram(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> > Hi Kerry,
> > Those are all very interesting ways to look at this. I was thinking
> > mostly along the lines of your first bullet point, but I'd be
> > interested in research in any of those areas.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Greg
>
> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at
5:00 AM
> > <wiki-research-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Send Wiki-research-l
mailing list submissions to
> > > wiki-research-l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > > You can reach the
person managing the list at
> > > wiki-research-l-owner(a)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. gender
balance of wikipedia citations (Greg)
> > > 2. Re: gender balance of wikipedia citations (Kerry Raymond)
> >
> >
> > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> >
> > > Message: 1
> > > Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 20:19:18 -0700
> > > From: Greg <thenatureprogram(a)gmail.com>
> > > To: wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Subject: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of wikipedia citations
> > > Message-ID:
> > > <
> > > CAOO9DNtY+oDO5oQrMZeG1NZE-kYNYLWnTD6acHeYTbYeGk8k2Q(a)mail.gmail.com>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > > Greetings!
> >
> > > I was looking for
information about the gender balance of Wikipedia
> > > citations and no one I've asked knows of any work on this topic. Do
> you?
> >
> > > I think this is
an important question.
> >
> > > Here's what
I've learned so far:
> >
> > > Wikipedia
citations are currently in the form of text strings. There
> > > is also an initiative to place citations in an annotated structured
> > > repository (wikicite). I do not know the current status of wikicite
> > > or if/when this could be used for this inquiry--either to examine
> > > all, or a sensible subset of the citations.
> >
> > > My perspective is
that understanding the gender balance is
> > > necessary and urgent. The balance could be better, the same, or
> > > worse than the citation balances we already know, and the scale of
the
> effect is quite large.
> >
> > > Is this a line of
inquiry that the wikimedia/wikicite community is
> > > interested in pursuing? If so, what is the best way to get started?
> > > Does the WMF have the resources and interest to look into this matter
> inhouse?
> >
> > > Thanks for your
thoughts.
> >
> > > Greg
> >
> >
> > > ------------------------------
> >
> > > Message: 2
> > > Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 13:53:45 +1000
> > > From: "Kerry Raymond" <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com>
> > > To: "'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'"
> > > <wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of wikipedia citations
> > > Message-ID: <00ed01d5589d$33e31ed0$9ba95c70$(a)gmail.com>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > > Could you
elaborate a bit more on what you mean by the gender
> > > balance of citations?
> >
> > > Are you talking
about:
> >
> > > * proportion of
male vs female authors of the source material used
> > > as citations in arbitrary articles>
> > > * the quality/quantity of citations in biography articles of men vs
> women?
> > > * the quality/quantity of citations in articles that are gendered by
> > > some other criteria (e.g. reader interest, romantic comedy vs action
> film)?
> >
> > > Kerry
> >
> > > -----Original
Message-----
> > > From: Wiki-research-l
> > > [mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
> > > On Behalf Of Greg
> > > Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2019 1:19 PM
> > > To: wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Subject: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of wikipedia citations
> >
> > > Greetings!
> >
> > > I was looking for
information about the gender balance of Wikipedia
> > > citations and no one I've asked knows of any work on this topic. Do
> you?
> >
> > > I think this is
an important question.
> >
> > > Here's what
I've learned so far:
> >
> > > Wikipedia
citations are currently in the form of text strings. There
> > > is also an initiative to place citations in an annotated structured
> > > repository (wikicite). I do not know the current status of wikicite
> > > or if/when this could be used for this inquiry--either to examine
> > > all, or a sensible subset of the citations.
> >
> > > My perspective is
that understanding the gender balance is
> > > necessary and urgent. The balance could be better, the same, or
> > > worse than the citation balances we already know, and the scale of
the
> effect is quite large.
> >
> > > Is this a line of
inquiry that the wikimedia/wikicite community is
> > > interested in pursuing? If so, what is the best way to get started?
> > > Does the WMF have the resources and interest to look into this matter
> inhouse?
> >
> > > Thanks for your
thoughts.
> >
> > > Greg
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> > >
------------------------------
> >
> > > Subject: Digest
Footer
> >
> > >
_______________________________________________
> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> >
> > > ------------------------------
> >
> > > End of
Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 168, Issue 11
> > > ************************************************
> >
> >
_______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
_______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> ------------------------------
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
_______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> ------------------------------
> End of Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol
168, Issue 13
> ************************************************
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
------------------------------
End of Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 168, Issue 14
************************************************