Re: [Wiki-research-l] Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia

[Taha Yasseri]

Dear Kerry,
Thank you for the comment and questions. Actually what comes in the
following is not published and completly proven, these are just some
preliminary results which are going to be completed soon.

My first question is whether or not you think this metric or some variant
> can be used to detect current conflict in articles (rather than the
> existence of past conflict). My thinking is that if conflict can be
> detected early, it may be possible for the peacemakers to guide the
> conflict to a consensus rather than attempt to do so once hostilities are
> well-established.
>

yes and no. Actually the metric is especially more sensitive to the bigger
wars, and assuming that wars are fairly small at the beginning, it makes it
a bit difficult to use the metric as a monitoring tool. However, as the
fights get a bit serious, the metric grows fast enough and in principle
could be used to monitor and detect medium size conflicts. As for
prediction (this is also often asked), unfortunately our efforts fail,
especially in the case of external-driven-conflicts. For instance when
something in real world happens and leads to a burst of aggressive
activities, since we are not able to predict that external event, all our
predictive modellings fail.

Another question relates to warring editors. If I read it right, you looked
> for pairs (or groups) of editors that were reverting one another’s changes
> (i.e. an edit war) in an article. However, is conflict limited to just one
> article? Is it possible that warring editors on one article may then engage
> in conflicts over other articles simultaneously or later, either because of
> the same issue that caused the earlier disagreements or because they had
> developed a dislike for one another and were ready to find excuses to be
> unpleasant to each other. That is, are we just looking at articles that are
> controversial (in some way) or are we also looking at pairs (or groups) of
> editors who are actively hostile to one another. It might be interesting to
> know if editors who have been involved in edit wars go on to peacefully
> co-exist with one another on other articles, go to war with them over other
> articles, or simply never happen to encounter each other again (WP being a
> big place). If they do go on to war again, was it because they are both
> active on articles within similar categories (e.g. sexuality) or because
> one/both is stalking the other (which you might suspect if they had
> conflicts across a range of topics, especially where one of them had no
> prior edit history in that category (e.g. start warring over Ben Franklin
> and then continue it in Pumpkin).
>

Actually your suspicion is very much relevant! We started following active
warriors. We observed not only same people and same pairs appear in
articles topically related, but also they cause conflicts around the same
topics in other language Wikipedias! Actually it is difficult to determine
that the fighting pairs are more fighting because of their beliefs and
opinions or it has become more personal after a while of fighting. But I
think the first case is more likely, as we could see the same pairs more in
the rather related topics whereas if it is a personal fight it would spread
into completely different topics. Now our focus is mainly on users than
articles and we are trying to find activity patterns of trouble makers.

thanks again for the questions,
.taha

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Kerry Raymond wrote:

> ** ** ** ** **
>
> Thank you for sharing your paper. I found it very interesting that there
> are good metrics that enable detection of articles with conflict. I have a
> couple of questions, which might well go beyond your current study but I’d
> welcome your thoughts.
>
> ** **
>
> My first question is whether or not you think this metric or some variant
> can be used to detect current conflict in articles (rather than the
> existence of past conflict). My thinking is that if conflict can be
> detected early, it may be possible for the peacemakers to guide the
> conflict to a consensus rather than attempt to do so once hostilities are
> well-established.
>
> ** **
>
> Another question relates to warring editors. If I read it right, you
> looked for pairs (or groups) of editors that were reverting one another’s
> changes (i.e. an edit war) in an article. However, is conflict limited to
> just one article? Is it possible that warring editors on one article may
> then engage in conflicts over other articles simultaneously or later,
> either because of the same issue that caused the earlier disagreements or
> because they had developed a dislike for one another and were ready to find
> excuses to be unpleasant to each other. That is, are we just looking at
> articles that are controversial (in some way) or are we also looking at
> pairs (or groups) of editors who are actively hostile to one another. It
> might be interesting to know if editors who have been involved in 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

hi,


> My first question is whether or not you think this metric or some variant
> can be used to detect current conflict in articles (rather than the
> existence of past conflict). My thinking is that if conflict can be detected
> early, it may be possible for the peacemakers to guide the conflict to a
> consensus rather than attempt to do so once hostilities are
> well-established.

the simplest approach would be to automatically detect 3R violations
(or 2R, if it made sense).

best,

dj


___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia

[WereSpielChequers]

Hi Kerry,

There have been several nationalistic and or religious disputes that have
involved the same protagonists over numerous articles on that contentious
topic. Pretty much any topic that is controversial in real life will be
controversial on Wikipedia, with the added possibility that the Internet is
a wonderful device for putting people into contact with people from very
different cultures and with viewpoints that might not exist in their real
life society/culture/country

One good list of things that have been controversial on Wikipedia is the
list of general sanctions decreed by ARBCOM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active_sanctions#General_sanctions

TTFN

WereSpielChequers

On 25 June 2012 08:26, Kerry Raymond  wrote:

> ** ** ** ** **
>
> Thank you for sharing your paper. I found it very interesting that there
> are good metrics that enable detection of articles with conflict. I have a
> couple of questions, which might well go beyond your current study but I’d
> welcome your thoughts.
>
> ** **
>
> My first question is whether or not you think this metric or some variant
> can be used to detect current conflict in articles (rather than the
> existence of past conflict). My thinking is that if conflict can be
> detected early, it may be possible for the peacemakers to guide the
> conflict to a consensus rather than attempt to do so once hostilities are
> well-established.
>
> ** **
>
> Another question relates to warring editors. If I read it right, you
> looked for pairs (or groups) of editors that were reverting one another’s
> changes (i.e. an edit war) in an article. However, is conflict limited to
> just one article? Is it possible that warring editors on one article may
> then engage in conflicts over other articles simultaneously or later,
> either because of the same issue that caused the earlier disagreements or
> because they had developed a dislike for one another and were ready to find
> excuses to be unpleasant to each other. That is, are we just looking at
> articles that are controversial (in some way) or are we also looking at
> pairs (or groups) of editors who are actively hostile to one another. It
> might be interesting to know if editors who have been involved in edit wars
> go on to peacefully co-exist with one another on other articles, go to war
> with them over other articles, or simply never happen to encounter each
> other again (WP being a big place). If they do go on to war again, was it
> because they are both active on articles within similar categories (e.g.
> sexuality) or because one/both is stalking the other (which you might
> suspect if they had conflicts across a range of topics, especially where
> one of them had no prior edit history in that category (e.g. start warring
> over Ben Franklin and then continue it in Pumpkin).
>
> ** **
>
> Kerry
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>  --
>
> *From:* wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
> wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Taha Yasseri
> *Sent:* Friday, 22 June 2012 8:15 AM
> *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> *Subject:* [Wiki-research-l] Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia
>
> ** **
>
> Dear Wikipedia researchers!
> Our manuscript on is now released by PLoS ONE and available at:
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0038869
>
> I would delightedly take your comments and remarks.
>
> bests
> .Taha
>
>
> Dr. Taha Yasseri.
> -
> www.phy.bme.hu/~yasseri 
>
> Department of Theoretical Physics
> Institute** of **Physics
> Budapest** **University of Technology and Economics
>
> Budafoki út 8.
> H- Budapest**, **Hungary
>
> tel: +36 1 463 4110
> fax: +36 1 463 3567
> -
>
>
> --
> Taha.
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia

[Kerry Raymond]

Thank you for sharing your paper. I found it very interesting that there are
good metrics that enable detection of articles with conflict. I have a
couple of questions, which might well go beyond your current study but I’d
welcome your thoughts.

 

My first question is whether or not you think this metric or some variant
can be used to detect current conflict in articles (rather than the
existence of past conflict). My thinking is that if conflict can be detected
early, it may be possible for the peacemakers to guide the conflict to a
consensus rather than attempt to do so once hostilities are
well-established.

 

Another question relates to warring editors. If I read it right, you looked
for pairs (or groups) of editors that were reverting one another’s changes
(i.e. an edit war) in an article. However, is conflict limited to just one
article? Is it possible that warring editors on one article may then engage
in conflicts over other articles simultaneously or later, either because of
the same issue that caused the earlier disagreements or because they had
developed a dislike for one another and were ready to find excuses to be
unpleasant to each other. That is, are we just looking at articles that are
controversial (in some way) or are we also looking at pairs (or groups) of
editors who are actively hostile to one another. It might be interesting to
know if editors who have been involved in edit wars go on to peacefully
co-exist with one another on other articles, go to war with them over other
articles, or simply never happen to encounter each other again (WP being a
big place). If they do go on to war again, was it because they are both
active on articles within similar categories (e.g. sexuality) or because
one/both is stalking the other (which you might suspect if they had
conflicts across a range of topics, especially where one of them had no
prior edit history in that category (e.g. start warring over Ben Franklin
and then continue it in Pumpkin).

 

Kerry

 

 

 

 

 

  _  

From: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Taha
Yasseri
Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012 8:15 AM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia

 

Dear Wikipedia researchers!
Our manuscript on is now released by PLoS ONE and available at:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0038869

I would delightedly take your comments and remarks.

bests
.Taha


Dr. Taha Yasseri.
-
www.phy.bme.hu/~yasseri

Department of Theoretical Physics
Institute of Physics
Budapest University of Technology and Economics

Budafoki út 8.
H- Budapest, Hungary

tel: +36 1 463 4110
fax: +36 1 463 3567
-


-- 
Taha.

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l