Tom,
You may be interested in the ORES Platform
<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/ORES>, which provides a vandalism detection
service across many (but not all) Wikipedia languages. It works at the
revision level, not the user level, but I suppose you could filter and/or
aggregate.
Best,
Jonathan
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 1:19 PM Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
And, FWIW, I don’t think we have a flag on an edit
saying that is
vandalism. We have a history that can show an edit that is reverted. On
inspection of the edit summary of the reversion, there may be some textual
clues e.g. “rvv” a common abbreviation for “reverting vandalism”. There may
be a message in the reverted IP’s talk page that uses words that suggest
vandalism (noting that many of these messages are templates and so have
highly predictable structure, usually with initially neutral terms like
“not constructive” escalating to the explicit use of the word “vandalism”
in some form). However, these messages may not specifically link to the
problematic edit so you would be looking for talk page messages appearing
“shortly” after the revert of the edit.
Not all vandalism is immediately detected; there may be a number of other
edits intervening, which may make it impossible to revert.
Not all vandalism is removed with revert, it may occur by “normal editing”
perhaps as part of a larger edit.
Not all reverted edits are vandalism. They may be well-intentioned but
breach a Wikipedia policy (eg requirement for citation, present an opinion
as a fact). Some acceptable edits get reverted for a range of (mostly
unacceptable) reasons like gatekeeping, style errors, UI errors (if the GUI
loads slowly, my click to say thanks sometimes turns into a revert!), etc.
And finally, as someone who does her watch list diligently, sometimes you
just can’t tell if an edit is vandalism. The classic is the small change in
dates. If there is no citation or the citation is to a off-line resource or
a deadlink, it may be impossible to tell if the changed information is a
genuine correction or a deliberately damaging action. Obviously I may have
my suspicions, but I do have the obligation to Assume Good Faith. It’s not
easy.
Kerry
Sent from my iPad
On 16 Jan 2019, at 9:03 pm, Thomas Stieve
<tomthirteen(a)email.arizona.edu>
wrote:
Dear Listserv,
Hope all is well. I am mapping IP address edits per country for 271
language Wikipedias. I would like to exclude IP addresses that are
vandalism. I was thinking of using the ipblocks table for the IP
addresses
to be excluded. Because this project is in so
many different languages
and
my programming skills are intermediate, I would
like to use the Wikipedia
tables or registers that the Wikipedians in those language use to mark
vandalism. If anyone has another idea, I would be most grateful. Perhaps
I
am missing a way that Wikipedians across
languages are using to mark
vandalism.
Thank you,
Tom
--
Thomas Stieve
Ph.D. Candidate
School of Geography and Development
University of Arizona
_______________________________________________
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
--
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)>