This paper (first reference) is the result of a class project I was part of
almost two years ago for CSCI 5417 Information Retrieval Systems. It builds
on a class project I did in CSCI 5832 Natural Language Processing and which
I presented at Wikimania '07. The project was very late as we didn't send
the final paper in until the day before new years. This technical report was
never really announced that I recall so I thought it would be interesting to
look briefly at the results. The goal of this paper was to break articles
down into surface features and latent features and then use those to study
the rating system being used, predict article quality and rank results in a
search engine. We used the [[random forests]] classifier which allowed us to
analyze the contribution of each feature to performance by looking directly
at the weights that were assigned. While the surface analysis was performed
on the whole english wikipedia, the latent analysis was performed on the
simple english wikipedia (it is more expensive to compute). = Surface
features = * Readability measures are the single best predictor of quality
that I have found, as defined by the Wikipedia Editorial Team (WET). The
[[Automated Readability Index]], [[Gunning Fog Index]] and [[Flesch-Kincaid
Grade Level]] were the strongest predictors, followed by length of article
html, number of paragraphs, [[Flesh Reading Ease]], [[Smog Grading]], number
of internal links, [[Laesbarhedsindex Readability Formula]], number of words
and number of references. Weakly predictive were number of to be's, number
of sentences, [[Coleman-Liau Index]], number of templates, PageRank, number
of external links, number of relative links. Not predictive (overall - see
the end of section 2 for the per-rating score breakdown): Number of h2 or
h3's, number of conjunctions, number of images*, average word length, number
of h4's, number of prepositions, number of pronouns, number of interlanguage
links, average syllables per word, number of nominalizations, article age
(based on page id), proportion of questions, average sentence length. :*
Number of images was actually by far the single strongest predictor of any
class, but only for Featured articles. Because it was so good at picking out
featured articles and somewhat good at picking out A and G articles the
classifier was confused in so many cases that the overall contribution of
this feature to classification performance is zero. :* Number of external
links is strongly predictive of Featured articles. :* The B class is highly
distinctive. It has a strong "signature," with high predictive value
assigned to many features. The Featured class is also very distinctive. F, B
and S (Stop/Stub) contain the most information.
:* A is the least distinct class, not being very different from F or G. =
Latent features = The algorithm used for latent analysis, which is an
analysis of the occurence of words in every document with respect to the
link structure of the encyclopedia ("concepts"), is [[Latent Dirichlet
Allocation]]. This part of the analysis was done by CS PhD student Praful
Mangalath. An example of what can be done with the result of this analysis
is that you provide a word (a search query) such as "hippie". You can then
look at the weight of every article for the word hippie. You can pick the
article with the largest weight, and then look at its link network. You can
pick out the articles that this article links to and/or which link to this
article that are also weighted strongly for the word hippie, while also
contributing maximally to this articles "hippieness". We tried this query in
our system (LDA), Google (site:en.wikipedia.org hippie), and the Simple
English Wikipedia's Lucene search engine. The breakdown of articles occuring
in the top ten search results for this word for those engines is: * LDA
only: [[Acid rock]], [[Aldeburgh Festival]], [[Anne Murray]], [[Carl
Radle]], [[Harry Nilsson]], [[Jack Kerouac]], [[Phil Spector]], [[Plastic
Ono Band]], [[Rock and Roll]], [[Salvador Allende]], [[Smothers brothers]],
[[Stanley Kubrick]]. * Google only: [[Glam Rock]], [[South Park]]. * Simple
only: [[African Americans]], [[Charles Manson]], [[Counterculture]], [[Drug
use]], [[Flower Power]], [[Nuclear weapons]], [[Phish]], [[Sexual
liberation]], [[Summer of Love]] * LDA & Google & Simple: [[Hippie]],
[[Human Be-in]], [[Students for a democratic society]], [[Woodstock
festival]] * LDA & Google: [[Psychedelic Pop]] * Google & Simple: [[Lysergic
acid diethylamide]], [[Summer of Love]] ( See the paper for the articles
produced for the keywords philosophy and economics ) = Discussion /
Conclusion = * The results of the latent analysis are totally up to your
perception. But what is interesting is that the LDA features predict the WET
ratings of quality just as well as the surface level features. Both feature
sets (surface and latent) both pull out all almost of the information that
the rating system bears. * The rating system devised by the WET is not
distinctive. You can best tell the difference between, grouped together,
Featured, A and Good articles vs B articles. Featured, A and Good articles
are also quite distinctive (Figure 1). Note that in this study we didn't
look at Start's and Stubs, but in earlier paper we did. :* This is
interesting when compared to this recent entry on the YouTube blog. "Five
Stars Dominate Ratings"
http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2009/09/five-stars-dominate-ratings.html…
I think a sane, well researched (with actual subjects) rating system
is
well within the purview of the Usability Initiative. Helping people find and
create good content is what Wikipedia is all about. Having a solid rating
system allows you to reorganized the user interface, the Wikipedia
namespace, and the main namespace around good content and bad content as
needed. If you don't have a solid, information bearing rating system you
don't know what good content really is (really bad content is easy to spot).
:* My Wikimania talk was all about gathering data from people about articles
and using that to train machines to automatically pick out good content. You
ask people questions along dimensions that make sense to people, and give
the machine access to other surface features (such as a statistical measure
of readability, or length) and latent features (such as can be derived from
document word occurence and encyclopedia link structure). I referenced page
262 of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance to give an example of the
kind of qualitative features I would ask people. It really depends on what
features end up bearing information, to be tested in "the lab". Each word is
an example dimension of quality: We have "*unity, vividness, authority,
economy, sensitivity, clarity, emphasis, flow, suspense, brilliance,
precision, proportion, depth and so on.*" You then use surface and latent
features to predict these values for all articles. You can also say, when a
person rates this article as high on the x scale, they also mean that it has
has this much of these surface and these latent features.
= References =
- DeHoust, C., Mangalath, P., Mingus., B. (2008). *Improving search in
Wikipedia through quality and concept discovery*. Technical Report.
PDF<http://grey.colorado.edu/mediawiki/sites/mingus/images/6/68/DeHoustMangalat…>
- Rassbach, L., Mingus., B, Blackford, T. (2007). *Exploring the
feasibility of automatically rating online article quality*. Technical
Report. PDF<http://grey.colorado.edu/mediawiki/sites/mingus/images/d/d3/RassbachPincock…>
Hoi,
I have asked and received permission to forward to you all this most
excellent bit of news.
The linguist list, is a most excellent resource for people interested in the
field of linguistics. As I mentioned some time ago they have had a funding
drive and in that funding drive they asked for a certain amount of money in
a given amount of days and they would then have a project on Wikipedia to
learn what needs doing to get better coverage for the field of linguistics.
What you will read in this mail that the total community of linguists are
asked to cooperate. I am really thrilled as it will also get us more
linguists interested in what we do. My hope is that a fraction will be
interested in the languages that they care for and help it become more
relevant. As a member of the "language prevention committee", I love to get
more knowledgeable people involved in our smaller projects. If it means that
we get more requests for more projects we will really feel embarrassed with
all the new projects we will have to approve because of the quality of the
Incubator content and the quality of the linguistic arguments why we should
approve yet another language :)
NB Is this not a really clever way of raising money; give us this much in
this time frame and we will then do this as a bonus...
Thanks,
GerardM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: LINGUIST Network <linguist(a)linguistlist.org>
Date: Jun 18, 2007 6:53 PM
Subject: 18.1831, All: Call for Participation: Wikipedia Volunteers
To: LINGUIST(a)listserv.linguistlist.org
LINGUIST List: Vol-18-1831. Mon Jun 18 2007. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.
Subject: 18.1831, All: Call for Participation: Wikipedia Volunteers
Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Eastern Michigan U <aristar(a)linguistlist.org>
Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry(a)linguistlist.org>
Reviews: Laura Welcher, Rosetta Project
<reviews(a)linguistlist.org>
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/
The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University,
and donations from subscribers and publishers.
Editor for this issue: Ann Sawyer <sawyer(a)linguistlist.org>
================================================================
To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html
===========================Directory==============================
1)
Date: 18-Jun-2007
From: Hannah Morales < hannah(a)linguistlist.org >
Subject: Wikipedia Volunteers
-------------------------Message 1 ----------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:49:35
From: Hannah Morales < hannah(a)linguistlist.org >
Subject: Wikipedia Volunteers
Dear subscribers,
As you may recall, one of our Fund Drive 2007 campaigns was called the
"Wikipedia Update Vote." We asked our viewers to consider earmarking their
donations to organize an update project on linguistics entries in the
English-language Wikipedia. You can find more background information on this
at:
http://linguistlist.org/donation/fund-drive2007/wikipedia/index.cfm.
The speed with which we met our goal, thanks to the interest and generosity
of
our readers, was a sure sign that the linguistics community was enthusiastic
about the idea. Now that summer is upon us, and some of you may have a bit
more
leisure time, we are hoping that you will be able to help us get started on
the
Wikipedia project. The LINGUIST List's role in this project is a purely
organizational one. We will:
*Help, with your input, to identify major gaps in the Wikipedia materials or
pages that need improvement;
*Compile a list of linguistics pages that Wikipedia editors have identified
as
"in need of attention from an expert on the subject" or " does not cite any
references or sources," etc;
*Send out periodical calls for volunteer contributors on specific topics or
articles;
*Provide simple instructions on how to upload your entries into Wikipedia;
*Keep track of our project Wikipedians;
*Keep track of revisions and new entries;
*Work with Wikimedia Foundation to publicize the linguistics community's
efforts.
We hope you are as enthusiastic about this effort as we are. Just to help us
all
get started looking at Wikipedia more critically, and to easily identify an
area
needing improvement, we suggest that you take a look at the List of
Linguists
page at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_linguists. M
Many people are not listed there; others need to have more facts and
information
added. If you would like to participate in this exciting update effort,
please
respond by sending an email to LINGUIST Editor Hannah Morales at
hannah(a)linguistlist.org, suggesting what your role might be or which
linguistics
entries you feel should be updated or added. Some linguists who saw our
campaign
on the Internet have already written us with specific suggestions, which we
will
share with you soon.
This update project will take major time and effort on all our parts. The
end
result will be a much richer internet resource of information on the breadth
and
depth of the field of linguistics. Our efforts should also stimulate
prospective
students to consider studying linguistics and to educate a wider public on
what
we do. Please consider participating.
Sincerely,
Hannah Morales
Editor, Wikipedia Update Project
Linguistic Field(s): Not Applicable
-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-18-1831
Hoi,
There is a request for a Wikipedia in Ancient Greek. This request has so far
been denied. A lot of words have been used about it. Many people maintain
their positions and do not for whatever reason consider the arguments of
others.
In my opinion their are a few roadblocks.
- Ancient Greek is an ancient language - the policy does not allow for
it
- Text in ancient Greek written today about contemporary subjects
require the reconstruction of Ancient Greek.
- it requires the use of existing words for concepts that did
not exist at the time when the language was alive
- neologisms will be needed to describe things that did not
exist at the time when the language was alive
- modern texts will not represent the language as it used to be
- Constructed and by inference reconstructed languages are effectively
not permitted
We can change the policy if there are sufficient arguments, when we agree on
a need.
When a text is written in reconstructed ancient Greek, and when it is
clearly stated that it is NOT the ancient Greek of bygone days, it can be
obvious that it is a great tool to learn skills to read and write ancient
Greek but that it is in itself not Ancient Greek. Ancient Greek as a
language is ancient. I have had a word with people who are involved in the
working group that deals with the ISO-639, I have had a word with someone
from SIL and it is clear that a proposal for a code for "Ancient Greek
reconstructed" will be considered for the ISO-639-3. For the ISO-639-6 a
code is likely to be given because a clear use for this code can be given.
We can apply for a code and as it has a use bigger then Wikipedia alone it
clearly has merit.
With modern texts clearly labelled as distinct from the original language,
it will be obvious that innovations a writers needs for his writing are
legitimate.
This leaves the fact that constructed and reconstructed languages are not
permitted because of the notion that mother tongue users are required. In my
opinion, this has always been only a gesture to those people who are dead
set against any and all constructed languages. In the policies there is
something vague "*it must have a reasonable degree of recognition as
determined by discussion (this requirement is being discussed by the language
subcommittee <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee>)."* It
is vague because even though the policy talks about a discussion, it is
killed off immediately by stating "The proposal has a sufficient number of
living native speakers to form a viable community and audience." In my
opinion, this discussion for criteria for the acceptance of constructed or
reconstructed languages has not happened. Proposals for objective criteria
have been ignored.
In essence, to be clear about it:
- We can get a code for reconstructed languages.
- We need to change the policy to allow for reconstructed and
constructed languages
We need to do both in order to move forward.
The proposal for objective criteria for constructed and reconstructed
languages is in a nutshell:
- The language must have an ISO-639-3 code
- We need full WMF localisation from the start
- The language must be sufficiently expressive for writing a modern
encyclopaedia
- The Incubator project must have sufficiently large articles that
demonstrate both the language and its ability to write about a wide range of
topics
- A sufficiently large group of editors must be part of the Incubator
project
Thanks,
GerardM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello all!
Next Thursday's office hours will feature Véronique Kessler, the
Foundation's Chief Financial Officer. If you don't know
Naoko, you can get to know her at
<http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/V%C3%A9ronique_Kessler>.
Office hours on Thursday are from 2100 to 2200 UTC (3:00 PM - 4:00 PM PDT).
If you do not have an IRC client, there are two ways you can come chat
using a web browser: First is using the Wikizine chat gateway at
<http://chatwikizine.memebot.com/cgi-bin/cgiirc/irc.cgi>. Type a
nickname, select irc.freenode.net from the top menu and
#wikimedia-office from the following menu, then login to join.
Also, you can access Freenode by going to http://webchat.freenode.net/,
typing in the nickname of your choice and choosing wikimedia-office as
the channel. You may be prompted to click through a security warning.
It should be all right.
Please feel free to forward (and translate!) this email to any other
relevant email lists you happen to be on. Also note, this is
Veronique's first foray into IRC, so lets show her how welcoming we can
be! :-)
- --
Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAksDQcwACgkQyQg4JSymDYl+wACcCsTgIUtThC4agEUwC9533olx
61cAn1titMJqMmNt4GESgoQ9U5sQMFM7
=1DvA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi everyone,
The next strategic planning office hours are:
Wednesday, 04:00-05:00 UTC, which is:
-Tuesday (8-9pm PST)
-Tuesday (11pm-12am EST)
There has been a lot of tremendous work on the strategy wiki the past
few months, and Task Forces are finishing up their work.
Office hours will be a great opportunity to discuss the work that's
happened as well as the work to come.
As always, you can access the chat by going to
https://webchat.freenode.net and filling in a username and the channel
name (#wikimedia-strategy). You may be prompted to click through a
security warning. It's fine. More details at:
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours
Thanks! Hope to see many of you there.
____________________
Philippe Beaudette
Facilitator, Strategy Project
Wikimedia Foundation
philippe(a)wikimedia.org
mobile: 918 200-WIKI (9454)
Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
This is relevant to Wikivideoistas ... wasn't last year's conf the
origin of the "video on Wikipedia" campaign? Watch out, who knows what
they'll come up with this year.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ben Moskowitz <benrito(a)gmail.com>
Date: Mon, May 31, 2010 at 10:58 AM
Subject: [Air-L] Open Video Conference proposals deadline: June 7th
To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org
Hello all,
I'm writing on behalf of the Open Video Alliance, in preparation for
our Open Video Conference in New York City, October 1-2. OVC is a
high-profile gathering of thought leaders in business, academia,
technology, and non-profits to explore the future of the online video
medium.
This year's OVC is particularly important, given new technology developments.
If you are interested in the critical debates around online video,
participatory culture, and the mass media generally, you may be
interested in participating. Details from last year's event are
available at http://openvideoalliance.org/open-video-conference/speakers09/.
If you have an idea for a panel, workshop, or any other programming,
please take the time to suggest it at:
http://openvideoconference.org/proposals
We will offer travel funding to a number of participants. The deadline
to propose a session is June 7th.
Please feel free to pass the message along to friends are colleagues
who are interested in online video and the open web.
Best wishes,
Ben Moskowitz
General coordinator, Open Video Alliance
http://openvideoalliance.org
Contact: (714) 420-6471
_______________________________________________
The Air-L(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list
is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
http://www.aoir.org/
--
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at> gmail.com *
I see a number of issues holding professionals back from contributing:
1) Some do not realize that it is possible to edit Wikipedia ( I hear this
at work when people ask me how I became an editor ). Maybe we should
advertise the fact that yes you too can edit Wikipedia.
2) Many are just not interested. In medicine we have had issues with
getting physicians to do continuing medical education. Many just want to do
their job and that is it. Contributing to Wikipedia is work. However
students are required to do work and I think this is one of the populations
which would be easiest to attract. McGill University may have started a
Wikipedia club. Promoting these may be useful.
3) A great deal of competition to Wikipedia has sprung up such as
Radiopeadia ( which does not allow commercial use of images ), Medpedia (
which only allow professionals to contribute ), and Wikidocs ( which has
more technical content ). Each addressing some perceived drawback in
Wikipedia. None however has received the viewership of Wikipedia but of
course cuts into the pool of available volunteers. Medpedia has partnered
with a number of very respected Universities. I think we could learn
something for each of these formats such as clarification around image
copyright and that CC does not mean you lose the rights to it, greater
exposure of the professionals who already contribute, etc.
4) Wikipedia has received negative press in professional publications. We
need to address these negativities most of which are false. Currently a
number of us at WikiProject Med are writing a paper for publication
promoting Wikipedia as a health care information resource. Other subject
areas should do the same.
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, B.Sc.
With respect, the work on the Sexual Content proposal as pretty much
thrown out all of Jimbo's work, and is proceeding from a direction
more consistent with the values of Commons. To say that " Jimmy is
actively engaged in discussions with other Wikimedia editors about
sexually-explicit materials on Wikimedia Commons." is highly
misleading: He has not been involved with this process since the
attempted purge.
Further:
"and although the discussions over the past week have been unusually
intense, we don’t consider them problematic. Discussion is how
Wikimedians work through policy development and policy interpretation:
active argument and debate are normal for us — they are how we do our
work. The Wikimedia Foundation is grateful for Jimmy’s involvement,
and we’re glad he continues to be an important part of the Wikimedia
movement."
Actually, Jimbo was highly disruptive, editwarred to force artworks to
be included in the list of material to delete, threatened people, and
no progress was or could be made until he left it to us volunteers.
This is a rewrite of history.
-Adam
Hoi,
The creation of a wiki for SignWriting is a* very* exciting development. In
the language committee we have indicated that technical issues are what
prevents a Wikipedia for sign languages at this time. The SignWriting wiki
is effectively an incubator for the technology needed and for the languages
to write the minimum number of articles they need for acceptance as a new
language.
Given all the technical issues, I am of the opinion that a requirement for
localisation can be waved. Sign languages with SignWriting would introduce
the writing in lanes ie top to bottom with characters moving slightly to the
right or left.
What I am looking for is agreement what technical issues need to be solved
before a sign language can become a Wikipedia. Compatible policies are not
an issue. I am thinking of being able to include images in the text and
having wiki links. What else is absolutely required before we can move
forward once there are sufficient articles ?
Thanks,
GerardM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Valerie Sutton <sutton(a)signwriting.org>
Date: 28 May 2010 21:04
Subject: SignWriting Encyclopedia Projects...new SignWriting Wiki
To: SLLING-L(a)listserv.valenciacc.edu
Hello SLLING List members -
We are working towards the goal of providing written literature in sign
languages.
We have started a new project. It was just posted on the web yesterday. Here
is the information:
New Special Feature
Posted May 27, 2010
Go to:
SignWriting Site
http://www.SignWriting.org
1. SignWriting Encyclopedia Projects
Writing Encyclopedias in the Sign Languages of the World
http://www.signwriting.org/encyclopedia
2. SignWriting Wiki
Wiki-style Articles written in Any Sign Language
http://www.signbank.org/wiki
3. Blogs on the ASL Wikipedia
Incubating ASL for new Wikipedia
http://www.signwriting.org/blogs/#Meijssen
4. SignWriting Image Server (SWIS)
Display and edit SignWriting images with fast installation
http://www.signbank.org/swis
The new SignWriting Wiki is open to anyone who wishes to add a category for
their sign language, and start writing articles in SignWriting using
SignPuddle Online, and then transferring the articles from SignPuddle Online
into the SignWriting Wiki for viewing and reading by the general public.
The SignWriting Wiki is the incubator, or the development site, hopefully
for a future ASL Wikipedia (or Wikipedias in any sign language we hope
someday).
The SignWriting Wiki is the test area for our new software, the SignWriting
MediaWiki Plugin, by Steve Slevinski.
In the future, it will be possible to write the SignWriting articles
directly in the SignWriting Wiki, without having to transfer them from
SignPuddle Online...so there is ongoing software development behind the
scenes to make this happen...
But for right now, this is a big "first step" and I want to thank Steve
Slevinski, Adam Frost (Deaf ASL editor who posted the first two articles in
the SignWriting Wiki in ASL) and Gerard Meijssen from the Language Committee
of the Wikimedia Foundation, for their hard work and encouragement...
The first two articles added to the ASL SignWriting Wiki are based on the
ASL videos by Lucinda O'Grady Batch, of the history of Charles-Michel de
l'Épée and the history of Laurent Clerc. Both videos were first transcribed
into SignWriting by Charles Butler, and placed in SignPuddle Online, and
then Adam Frost transferred them into the SignWriting Wiki for people to
read. You can read them at these links:
ASL SignWriting Wiki
http://www.signbank.org/wiki/index.php?title=Category:ASL
History of Charles-Michel de l'Épée
http://www.signbank.org/wiki/index.php?title=Charles-Michel_de_l%27%C3%89p%…
History of Laurent Clerc
http://www.signbank.org/wiki/index.php?title=Laurent_Clerc
Any feedback is much appreciated, so write anytime -
Val ;-)
Valerie Sutton
Sutton(a)SignWriting.org
SignWriting
Read & Write Sign Languages
http://www.SignWriting.org
SignPuddle
Create SignWriting Documents Online
http://www.SignBank.org/signpuddle
SignWriting Wiki
Wiki-style Articles in Sign Languages
http://www.signbank.org/wiki
SignWriting List
Technical Support: Ask questions...
http://www.SignWriting.org/forums/swlist
SignWriting Literature Project
Writing Literature in Sign Languages
http://www.SignWriting.org/literature
SignWriting Encyclopedia Projects
Writing Encyclopedias in Sign Languages
http://www.SignWriting.org/encyclopedia
Deaf Action Committee For SignWriting
Center For Sutton Movement Writing
a US educational nonprofit organization
PO Box 517, La Jolla, CA, 92038, USA
Tel: 858-456-0098 Skype: valeriesutton