When I started editing in 2006 it was already the norm; ever since people
are encouraging each other to place their questions about a given article
rather on the village pump or a project page, than on the actual article's
talk page, reasoning that there is larger traffic....what generates even
larger traffic on those pages making article talks even more sparse :)
I guess only a socio-cultural research could answer the question: why is it
like that on huwiki. Maybe one day in the bright (and hopefully not so far)
future Wikimedia Hungary will order a similar research so you can use that
later on in your own research ;)
Üdv,
Balázs
2013/7/22 Taha Yasseri <taha.yasseri(a)oii.ox.ac.uk>
That's very interesting to know. Thanks for
telling me. We were quite
surprised by seeing very spars talk pages in Hungarian Wiki.
I'm sure you know better than me that article talk pages are for different
purposes that user talks and the village pump. However that's interesting
that Hungarian Wikipedia prefer to take the discussion to other places than
talk pages.
szervusz
Taha.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:32 PM, Balázs Viczián <
balazs.viczian(a)wikimedia.hu
wrote:
As a Hungarian, it is really interesting to read
something specific
about the Hungarian Wikipedia :)
I read somewhere (correct me if I'm wrong) that you found little to no
discussions on article talk pages on the Hungarian Wikipedia,
indicating that users barely discuss the content (or anything at all
about the given article).
Actually these discussions are either quickly moving to the village
pump after 1-2 comments or happening there entirely. The most common
is that the users discuss it on their user talk pages by directly
messaging each other about the changes they made/content, creating
2-3-4 paralel threads on each others's user talks. Article talks for
this reason are generally considered "deserted lands" on huwiki, what
almost nobody reads.
Cheers,
Balázs
2013/7/22 Taha Yasseri <taha.yasseri(a)oii.ox.ac.uk>
Anders,
I really like your idea on "universal" articles. given the fact that
translation and communication cross languages is not a very task these
days
any more.
By the way, in a blog post, I have release some more data on languages
like
Japanese, Chinese, and Portugies, in case
anyone's interested:
http://tahayasseri.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/wikipedia-modern-platform-ancie…
> >
> > bests,
> > Taha
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Anders Wennersten <
> mail(a)anderswennersten.se
> >
wrote:
> >
> > > I see the difference on the different version as most interesting and
> to
> > > have some insight into Arabic version, I have not had before
> > >
> > > On a "small version" like sv:wp we are very used to "steal
with
pride"
>
content from other versions, primary en:wp but also de:wp and others
and we
> do this especially for controversial
subjects that are not specific
for a
> country/culture. But are en:wp and other big
versions doing the same?
It is
> very refreshing for a clinched discussion to
start with an almost all
new
> textversion.
>
> Also I wonder over articles like Homeopathy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/*
> *Homeopathy
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy> which seems to
be
> > in top of controversies. Would it be an idea to compile an unverisal
> > article with help from different versions, ie do we really utilize
the
>
power of us having many versions and many experts?
>
> Anders
>
>
>
> Osmar Valdebenito skrev 2013-07-22 16:13:
>
> I was interviewed a few days ago from a Chilean newspaper because of
this
>> paper. For those interested that can
read Spanish here is the full
>> article:
>>
http://www.latercera.com/**noticia/tendencias/2013/07/**
>> 659-533645-9-estudio-dice-que-**chile-es-el-articulo-de-**
>> wikipedia-mas-editado-en-**espanol.shtml<
http://www.latercera.com/noticia/tendencias/2013/07/659-533645-9-estudio-di…
>>
>> I read the paper in full and I have to admit it has very interesting
>> approaches to remove the "vandalism" effect. Probably it won't be
perfect,
> >> especially for a platform where it is impossible to have an exact,
> >> quantitative measure of quality or neutrality. Is there a measure of
> >> controversiality? I will consider controversial those articles
where
I
>>
usually edit and probably I will ignore several others that are more
>> controversial and so on...
>>
>> But besides the particular issue of which is the most controversial
>> article, I'm more interested in the trends that each Wikipedia has.
They
> >> seem consistent and I think there is a lot of things that we can
learn
>>
from
>> it.
>>
>> *Osmar Valdebenito G.*
>> Director Ejecutivo
>> A. C. Wikimedia Argentina
>>
>>
>> 2013/7/22 Taha Yasseri <taha.yasseri(a)oii.ox.ac.uk>
>>
>> Thanks Tilman.
>>>
>>> Especially for your effort to resolve the misunderstandings, which
most
>>> of
>>> them I suppose are due to a shallow reading: "I had a bit of free
time
>>> last
>>> night waiting for trains and I skimmed through the study and its
>>> findings."
>>>
>>> We had two strategies to get rid of vandalisms, as you mentioned,
>>> considering only mutual reverts and waiting editors by their
maturity, I
> >>> suppose a vandal could not have a large maturity score by
definition.
>>>
>>> As for the data, this study has been carried out in 2011, and we
worked
>>> on
>>> the latest available dump at the time. Someone experienced in
academic
>>> research, especially at this scale
well knows that it really takes
time
> >>> to
> >>> get the analysis done, write the reports, get them reviewed, etc.
> >>> Especially that we have published 7-8 other papers during the same
> >>> period.
> >>> I see no problem in this as long as the metadata and such
information
> >>> about
> >>> the methods and the data under study are mentioned in the
manuscript,
> >>> which
> >>> is clearly the case here. I have seen many Wikipedia studies
without
any
> >>> mention of the dump they have used!
> >>>
> >>> Back to your concern for the general impression that the news
media
> >>> give
> >>> on wikipedia being a battlefield, I'd like to mention that I have
> >>> emphasised the small number of controversial articles compare to
the
> >>> total
> >>> number of articles in every single media response I had. Again as
you
>>> mentioned, we had given the percentages explicitly in our previous
work.
>>> But of course for obvious reasons
journalists are not happy to
highlight
> >>> this. They like to report on controversies and wars! This is not
our
>>> fault
>>> that what they report could be misleading, as long as we had tried
our
> >>> best
> >>> to avoid it. An interview of mine with BBC Radio Scotland: at
04:00
I
> >>> clearly say that there are millions and thousands of articles in
> >>> WIkipedia
> >>> which are not controversial, is available here:
> >>>
https://www.dropbox.com/s/**8whovkmipbqdzlv/bbc_radio_**Scotland.mp3
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/8whovkmipbqdzlv/bbc_radio_Scotland.mp3>. I
have
> >>> done the same in all the
others.
> >>>
> >>> Finally, I wish that the public media coverage of our research
which
is
>>> clearly far from perfect, could also
provide the members of the
public a
>>> better understanding of how
Wikipedia works and how fascinating it
is!
> >>>
> >>> Thanks again,
> >>>
> >>> Taha
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 22 Jul 2013 05:58, "Tilman Bayer"
<tbayer(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 2:32 PM, MZMcBride <z(a)mzmcbride.com>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Anders Wennersten wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> A most interesting study looking at findings from 10 different
>>>>>> language
>>>>>> versions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jesus and Middle east are the most controversial articles seen
over
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> world, but George Bush on en:wp and Chile on es:wp
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/**papers/1305/1305.5566.pdf<
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.5566.pdf>
>>>>>>
>>>>> FWIW, here is the review by Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia in last
month's
>>>> Wikimedia Research Newsletter:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
https://blog.wikimedia.org/**2013/06/28/wikimedia-research-**
>>> newsletter-june-2013/#.22The_**most_controversial_topics_in_**
>>> Wikipedia:_a_multilingual_and_**geographical_analysis.22<
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/06/28/wikimedia-research-newsletter-june-20…
>>>
>>>> (also published in the Signpost, the weekly newsletter on the
English
>>>> Wikipedia)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for sharing this.
>>>>>
>>>>> I had a bit of free time last night waiting for trains and I
skimmed
>>>>> through the study and its
findings. Two points stuck out at me: a
>>>>> seemingly fatally flawed methodology and the age of data used.
>>>>>
>>>>> The methodology used in this study seems to be pretty inherently
>>>>>
>>>> flawed.
>>>
>>>> According to the paper, controversiality was measured by full page
>>>>> reverts, which are fairly trivial to identify and study in a
database
>>>>>
>>>> dump
>>>>
>>>>> (using cryptographic hashes, as the study did), but I don't
think
full
> >>>>> reverts give an accurate impression _at all_ of which articles
are
the
>>>>> most controversial.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pages with many full reverts are indicative of pages that are
heavily
>>>>> vandalized. For example, the
"George W. Bush" article is/was
heavily
>>>>> vandalized for years on the
English Wikipedia. Does blanking the
>>>>>
>>>> article
>>>
>>>> or replacing its contents with the word "penis" mean that
it's a
very
>>>>> controversial article? Of
course not. Measuring only full reverts
(as
> >>>>>
> >>>> the
> >>>
> >>>> study seems to have done, though it's certainly possible
I've
> >>>>>
> >>>> overlooked
> >>>
> >>>> something) seems to be really misleading and inaccurate.
> >>>>>
> >>>> They didn't. You may have overlooked the description of the
> >>>> methodology on p.5: It's based on "mutual reverts"
where user A
has
> >>>> reverted user B and user B
has reverted user A, and gives higher
> >>>> weight to disputes between more experienced editors. This should
> >>>> exclude most vandalism reverts of the sort you describe. As noted
in
>>>> Giovanni's review, this method was proposed in an earlier paper,
Sumi
>>>> et al. (
>>>>
>>>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Research:Newsletter/2011/**
>>> July#Edit_wars_and_conflict_**metrics<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2011/July#Edit_wars_and…
>>>
>>>> ). That paper explains at length how this metric serves to
distinguish
> >>>> vandalism reverts from edit wars. Of course there are ample
> >>>> possibilities to refine it, e.g. taking into account page
protection
>>>> logs.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I'm more concerned that the new paper totally fails to
put
> >>>> its subject into perspective by stating how frequent such
> >>>> controversial articles are overall on Wikipedia. Thus it's no
wonder
> >>>> that the ample
international media coverage that it generated
mostly
> >>>> transports the notion (or
reinforces the preconception) of
Wikipedia
> >>>> as a huge battleground.
> >>>>
> >>>> The 2011 Sumi et al. paper did a better job in that respect:
"less
> >>>> than 25k articles, i.e. less than 1% of the 3m articles available
in
> >>>> the November 2009 English
WP dump, can be called controversial,
and
of
>>>> these, less than half are truly
edit wars."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In order to measure how controversial an article is, there are a
number
>>>>>
>>>> of
>>>>
>>>>> metrics that could be used, though of course no metric is perfect
and
> >>>>>
> >>>> many
> >>>>
> >>>>> metrics can be very difficult to accurately and rigorously
measure:
>>>>>
>>>>> * amount of talk page discussion generated for each article;
>>>>> * number of page watchers;
>>>>> * number of page views (possibly);
>>>>> * number of arbitration cases or other dispute resolution
procedures
> >>>>> related to the article (perhaps a key metric in determining
which
> >>>>>
> >>>> articles
> >>>>
> >>>>> are truly most controversial); and
> >>>>> * edit frequency and time between certain edits and partial or
full
>>>>> reverts of those edits.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are likely a number of other metrics that could be used as
well
> >>>>>
> >>>> to
> >>>
> >>>> measure controversiality; these were simply off the top of my
head.
>>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you are interested in this 2012 paper comparing such
metrics,
> >>>> which the authors of the present paper cite to justify their
choice
of
> >>>> metric:
> >>>> Sepehri Rad, H., Barbosa, D.: Identifying controversial articles
in
on
a
> >>>>> database dump from March 2010. While this may be unavoidable,
being
>>>>>
>>>> over
>>>
>>>> three years later, this introduces obvious bias into the data and
its
>>>>> findings. Put another way,
for the English Wikipedia started in
2001,
>>>>>
>>>> this
>>>>
>>>>> omits a quarter of the project's history(!). Again, given the
length of
> >>>>> time needed to draft and prepare a study, this gap may very
well
be
> >>>>> unavoidable, but it
certainly made me raise an eyebrow.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> One final comment I had from briefly reading the study was that
in
the
> >>>>> past few years we've made good strides in making research
like
this
>>>>> easier. Not that computing cryptographic hashes is particularly
>>>>>
>>>> intensive,
>>>>
>>>>> but these days we now store such hashes directly in the database
>>>>>
>>>> (though
>>>
>>>> we store SHA-1 hashes, not MD5 hashes as the study used). Storing
these
>>>>> hashes in the database saves
researchers the need to compute the
hashes
> >>>>> themselves and allows MediaWiki and other software the ability
to
> >>>>>
> >>>> easily
> >>>
> >>>> and quickly detect full reverts.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> MZMcBride
> >>>>>
> >>>>> P.S. Noting that this study is still a draft, I happened to
notice
a
> >>>>>
> >>>> small
> >>>>
> >>>>> typo on page nine: "We tried to a as diverse as possible
sample
> >>>>>
> >>>> including
> >>>
> >>>> West European [...]". Hopefully this can be corrected before
formal
>>>>> publication.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Tilman Bayer
>>>> Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
>>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>>> IRC (Freenode): HaeB
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dr Taha Yasseri
>>>
http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/**people/yasseri/<
http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/yasseri/>
> >>> Oxford Internet Institute
> >>> University of Oxford
> >>> 1 St.Giles
> >>> Oxford OX1 3JS
> >>> Tel.01865-287229
> >>> ------------------------------**-------------
> >>> Latest Article: Phys. Rev. Lett. Opinions, Conflicts, and
Consensus:
>>> Modeling Social Dynamics in a Collaborative
>>> Environment<http://prl.aps.**org/abstract/PRL/v110/i8/**e088701<
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v110/i8/e088701>
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> Non-technical review: University of Oxford, Mathematical model
> >>> 'describes'
> >>> how online conflicts are
> >>> resolved<
http://www.ox.ac.uk/**media/news_stories/2013/**130220.html
<http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2013/130220.html>
>>> >
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>>> ,
>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.org<
wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>>> ?subject=**unsubscribe>
>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>gt;,
>>
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.org<
wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>> ?subject=**unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>gt;,
>
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.org<
wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
?subject=**unsubscribe>
--
Dr Taha Yasseri
http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/yasseri/
Oxford Internet Institute
University of Oxford
1 St.Giles
Oxford OX1 3JS
Tel.01865-287229
-------------------------------------------
Latest Article: Phys. Rev. Lett. Opinions, Conflicts, and Consensus:
Modeling Social Dynamics in a Collaborative
Environment<http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v110/i8/e088701>
Non-technical review: University of Oxford, Mathematical model
'describes'
how online conflicts are
resolved<http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2013/130220.html>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
Dr Taha Yasseri
http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/yasseri/
Oxford Internet Institute
University of Oxford
1 St.Giles
Oxford OX1 3JS
Tel.01865-287229
-------------------------------------------
Latest Article: Phys. Rev. Lett. Opinions, Conflicts, and Consensus:
Modeling Social Dynamics in a Collaborative
Environment<http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v110/i8/e088701>
Non-technical review: University of Oxford, Mathematical model 'describes'
how online conflicts are
resolved<http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2013/130220.html>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>