[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: The most controversial topics in Wikipedia: A multilingual and geographical analysis
Taha Yasseri
taha.yasseri at oii.ox.ac.uk
Tue Jul 23 23:15:22 UTC 2013
On a different track and back to Tilman's concern, we managed to get the
following sentence published in the Washington Post:
Among the 3.2 million articles Yasseri’s group studied last year, fewer
than 100 appeared to be on a definite trajectory toward perpetual
disagreement. That’s an excellent record for Wikipedia. Insofar as the free
encyclopedia provides a model for intellectual collaboration through social
media, those results are also encouraging for the pursuit of knowledge in
general.
the full article is available here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/23/the-science-of-wikipedia-flamewars/
bests,
Taha
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Balázs Viczián <balazs.viczian at wikimedia.hu
> wrote:
> 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 at 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 at 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 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>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
--
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>
More information about the Wikimedia-l
mailing list