[Wiki-research-l] The Wikimedia Research Newsletter 2(12) is out

[Dario Taraborelli]

The December 2012 issue of the Wikimedia Research Newsletter is out:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2012/December

This issue completes the 2nd volume of the newsletter.

1 How Wikipedia deals with a mass shooting
2 Network positions and contributions to online public goods: the case of the 
Chinese Wikipedia
3 Quality of pharmaceutical articles in the Spanish Wikipedia
4 Wikipedia editing patterns are consistent with a non-finite state model of 
computation
5 Wikipedia as our collective memory
6 SOPA blackout decision analyzed
7 Bots and collective intelligence explored in dissertation
8 Briefly
9 References

••• 20 publications were covered in this issue •••
Thanks to  Daniel Mietchen, Piotr Konieczny, Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia, Taha 
Yasseri, Benjamin Mako Hill, Aaron Shaw and Sage Ross for contributing

Dario Taraborelli and Tilman Bayer

--
Wikimedia Research Newsletter
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/

* Follow us on Twitter/Identi.ca: @WikiResearch
* Receive this newsletter by mail: 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/research-newsletter 
* Subscribe to the RSS feed: 
http://blog.wikimedia.org/c/research-2/wikimedia-research-newsletter/feed/
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] 2012 top pageview list

[Andrew G. West]

The "Google Doodle" often explains some of the most unusual:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_Doodles_in_2012

Thanks, -AW


On 01/03/2013 04:06 PM, Kerry Raymond wrote:

Sorry, I meant the referrer stats for the "top pages of 2012" in the hope
that some unusual patterns might shed some light on why some of these pages
are so popular (contrary to what "common sense" might suggest).

Kerry

-Original Message-
From: Federico Leva (Nemo) [mailto:nemow...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 3 January 2013 10:26 PM
To: kerry.raym...@gmail.com; Research into Wikimedia content and communities
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] 2012 top pageview list

Kerry Raymond, 02/01/2013 22:46:

The problem (as always) is that there is a difference between pages served
(by the web server) and pages actually wanted and read by the user.

It would be interesting to have referrer statistics. I'm guessing that

many

of Wikipedia pages are being referred by Google (and other general search
engines).


See http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportGoogle.htm

Nemo


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



--
Andrew G. West, Doctoral Candidate
Dept. of Computer and Information Science
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia PA
Email:   west...@cis.upenn.edu
Website: http://www.andrew-g-west.com

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] 2012 top pageview list

[Kerry Raymond]

Sorry, I meant the referrer stats for the "top pages of 2012" in the hope
that some unusual patterns might shed some light on why some of these pages
are so popular (contrary to what "common sense" might suggest).

Kerry

-Original Message-
From: Federico Leva (Nemo) [mailto:nemow...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, 3 January 2013 10:26 PM
To: kerry.raym...@gmail.com; Research into Wikimedia content and communities
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] 2012 top pageview list

Kerry Raymond, 02/01/2013 22:46:
> The problem (as always) is that there is a difference between pages served
> (by the web server) and pages actually wanted and read by the user.
>
> It would be interesting to have referrer statistics. I'm guessing that
many
> of Wikipedia pages are being referred by Google (and other general search
> engines).

See http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportGoogle.htm

Nemo


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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] looking for paper on the "new editorexperience"

[Aaron Halfaker]

I looked at editors of all experience in earlier work, but found the
strongest effects for new editors (http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2038585).
 My primary motivation was to understand the editor decline and other work
that found out the decline represents the declining retention of new
editors, not the experienced ones(http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1641322
).

For anyone who is considering looking into the retention of experienced
editors, I highly recommend looking into the RfA process and dropping a
note to 
User:WereSpielChequers.
 He has a lot of insight into the process and how some problems could have
long term effects on the pool of administrators and the motivation/culture
of the top 0.1% of editors.

-Aaron


On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Kerry Raymond wrote:

>  Thanks to all of you who replied to me on and off-list. This is indeed
> the paper I was looking for!
>
> ** **
>
> Aaron, your research looked at new editors. Have you thought about
> undertaking a similar study about loss of seasoned editors (the
> beyond-newbie phase)? I note that there are a number of hypotheses on this
> topic
>
> ** **
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Reasons_editors_leave
> 
>
> ** **
>
> but not much evidence to provide any guidance. There was a survey sent to
> “formerly active” editors (can’t find the URL) which gathered some data
> which indicated that, apart from personal reasons, seasoned editors
> primarily left because of “community issues”, e.g. the behaviour of other
> editors. So I was wondering if the use of edit logs, user contributions,
> etc could be used (quantitatively or qualitatively) to provide insights
> into patterns of behaviour (of the editor or others interacting with that
> editor via contributions or talk pages etc) that might provide clues into
> the departure of seasoned editors and/or early warning signs of someone
> “about to walk”.
>
> ** **
>
> Kerry
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>  --
>
> *From:* wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
> wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Aaron Halfaker
> *Sent:* Thursday, 3 January 2013 1:36 PM
> *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] looking for paper on the "new
> editorexperience"
>
> ** **
>
> I think you're talking about a paper that I just finished editing American
> Behavioral Scientist: *The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration
> Community: How Wikipedia's reaction to sudden popularity is causing its
> decline*
>
> ** **
>
> Summary of findings (and free to download pre-print):
> http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/
>
> ** **
>
> Official listing:
> http://abs.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/12/26/0002764212469365
>
> ** **
>
> For quick reference, here's my *TL;DR: *
>
> ** **
>
> To deal with the massive influx of new editors between 2004 and 2007,
> Wikipedians built automated quality control tools and solidified their
> rules of governance. These reasonable and effective strategies for
> maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia have come at the cost of
> decreased retention of desirable newcomers.
>
>1. The decline represents a change in the rate of retention of
>desirable, *good-faith* newcomers.
>
>
> - The proportion of newcomers that edit in good-faith has not changed
>   since 2006.
>   - These desirable newcomers are more likely to have their work
>   rejected since 2007.
>   - This increased rejection predicts the observed decline in
>   retention.
>
>
>1. Semi-autonomous vandal fighting tools (like 
> Huggle)
>are partially at fault.
>
>
> - An increasing proportion of desirable newcomers are having their
>   work rejected by automated tools.
>   - These automated reverts exacerbate the predicted negative effects
>   of rejection on retention.
>   - Users of Huggle tend to not engage in the best 
> practices for
>   discussing the reverts they perform.
>
>
>1. New users are being pushed out of policy articulation.
>
>
> - The formalized process for vetting new policies and changes to
>   policies ensures that newcomers' edits do not survive.
>   - Both newcomers and experienced editors are moving increasingly
>   toward less formal spaces .*
>   ***
>
>  ** **
>
> -Aaron
>
> ** **
>
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Everton Zanella Alvarenga <
> ezalvare...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I don't know the article, but check if searching here helps
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org/
>
> http://wikimedia.7.n6.nabble.com/WikiMedia-Research-f1477409.

Re: [Wiki-research-l] 2012 top pageview list

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Kerry Raymond, 02/01/2013 22:46:

The problem (as always) is that there is a difference between pages served
(by the web server) and pages actually wanted and read by the user.

It would be interesting to have referrer statistics. I'm guessing that many
of Wikipedia pages are being referred by Google (and other general search
engines).


See http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportGoogle.htm

Nemo

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