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(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> < wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>> on behalf of wiki-research-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> < wiki-research-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 23:01 To: wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> Subject: Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 112, Issue 24 Send Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> 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 <javascript:;> You can reach the person managing the list at wiki-research-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> 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 &lt;mjn(a)anadrome.org <javascript:;>> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities &lt;wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] commentary on Wikipedia's community behaviour (Aaron gets a quote) Message-ID: &lt;87k31si55a.fsf(a)mjn.anadrome.org <javascript:;>> 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 &lt;werespielchequers(a)gmail.com <javascript:;>> writes: That has to be an exaggeration. <javascript:;>> wrote: <javascript:;>> wrote: pass this article around. <javascript:;>> wrote: 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" :) darekj(a)alk.edu.pl <javascript:;>> wrote: 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. kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote: 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. behaviour (Aaron gets a quote) 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. nemowiki(a)gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote: An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010 http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge -- Sent with my mu4e ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l