[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: The most controversial topics in Wikipedia: A multilingual and geographical analysis
Balázs Viczián
balazs.viczian at wikimedia.hu
Mon Jul 22 20:32:28 UTC 2013
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 at 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-ancient-debates-on-land-and-gods/
>
> bests,
> Taha
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Anders Wennersten <mail at 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-dice-que-chile-es-el-articulo-de-wikipedia-mas-editado-en-espanol.shtml>
> >>
> >> 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 at 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 at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 2:32 PM, MZMcBride <z at 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-2013/#.22The_most_controversial_topics_in_Wikipedia:_a_multilingual_and_geographical_analysis.22>
> >>>
> >>>> (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_conflict_metrics>
> >>>
> >>>> ). 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
> >>>> Wikipedia: A comparative study.
> >>>> http://www.wikisym.org/ws2012/**p18wikisym2012.pdf<http://www.wikisym.org/ws2012/p18wikisym2012.pdf>
> >>>>
> >>>> Regarding detection of (partial or full) reverts, see also
> >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Research:Revert_detection<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revert_detection>
> >>>>
> >>>> The second point that stuck out at me was that the study relied 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 at lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org>
> >>> ?subject=**unsubscribe>
> >>>
> >>> ______________________________**_________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org>
> >> ?subject=**unsubscribe>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ______________________________**_________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l at 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 at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
More information about the Wikimedia-l
mailing list