[Wiki-research-l] effects of vandalism and abuse on editors and readers

[Amir E. Aharoni]

Hi,

Is there any research about the effect of vandalism in wiki content pages
on readers, experienced editors, and new and potential editors?

And of abuse in discussion pages and edit summaries on experienced editors
and new and potential editors?

Intuitively and anecdotally one could think of the following:
1. Vandalism in content pages (articles) wastes editors' and patrollers'
time. This (probably) doesn't require proof (or does it?). But some people
say it also causes some experienced editors to burn out and leave. Is there
any data about it, beyond intuition?

2. Does vandalism *measurably* affect the perception of the wikis'
reliability? (This may be wildly different in different languages and
wikis.)

3. Abusive language on discussion pages and edit summaries affects editors,
and may cause them to reduce their editing, to stop editing about certain
topics, or to leave the wiki entirely. Is this effect measurable? How does
it differ for various groups by gender, age, religion, country,
professional and educational background, seniority at the wiki, etc.?

Thanks! :)

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Generalizability of research across different language versions

[Amir E. Aharoni]

Thanks a lot for bringing this up.

Sorry for not offering a solution, but I do want to mention a
frequently-missed aspect of the problem: Wikis in different languages have
some differences that are understandable because they reflect some
objective cultural characteristics of the people who speak it. But some
differences are artificial and exit because in the early days of Wikimedia
(mid-2000s) there were no convenient ways for wikis to communicate and
share info. There were no global accounts and no convenient translation
tools.

Templates are still not global, even though there is huge demand for it,[1]
and a lot of community process are implemented using templates: requests
for deletion, requests for unblocking, article sorting for WikiProjects,
stub sorting. Many of these things could be unified, at least partially, by
making templates global, and among many benefits, it would make research
easier, too.

[1] It came at #3 in the Community Wishlist vote in 2015, and at #1 in
2016. Despite this demand, it was not implemented :(

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬


‫בתאריך יום ד׳, 2 באוק׳ 2019 ב-14:37 מאת ‪Jan Dittrich‬‏ <‪
jan.dittr...@wikimedia.de‬‏>:‬

> Hello  researchers,
>
>  A lot of research on Wikipedia is published in English and also uses the
> English Wikipedia as source of data or researchers get their participants
> via English Wikipedia [0].
>
> A frequent criticism I meet when discussing such research with non-en.wp
> community members is that their Wikipedia is different and the results of
> en.wp base research are problematic/incomparable/totally useless.
>
> So I want to ask:
> - Do you know of research comparing different Wikis, preferably across
> language versions? [1]
> - How would you deal with such criticism, particularly of the "if it is not
> about 'my' wp it is useless"-kind [2]?
>
> Kind Regards,
>  Jan
>
> 
> [0] Plausible due to academi fields, particularly Computer Science,
> publishing mainly in english, size and WMF as actor being US-based.
> [1] I know of »revisiting "The Rise and Decline" in a Population of Peer
> Production Projects« (https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3173929),
> comparing different Wikia-Wikis; Research like "limits of
> self-organization" (https://firstmonday.org/article/view/1405/1323) that
> refer to general principles of peer production. Comparisons of Wikipedias
> across languages and the impact of their different contexts, languages and
> regulations would be very interesting to me.
> [2] I'm aware that making heterogeneous things comparable is seen as a core
> academic/scientific activity in STS research (Law, SL Star, Turnbull…) so I
> do not want to say, transfer to a different setting is not a problem – but
> it is certainly not "totally useless" either.
>
> --
> Jan Dittrich
> UX Design/ Research
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> https://wikimedia.de
>
> Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit
> teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> https://spenden.wikimedia.de
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
> ___
> 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

[Wiki-research-l] distinguishing native contributors from helpful strangers

[Amir E. Aharoni]

Hi,

There is a phenomenon in Wikipedias in smaller languages: There activity
level of people who actually know the language of the wiki and make
meaningful text contributions is relatively low, and the activity of people
from other wikis who make various technical edits that don't require the
knowledge of the language is relatively high.

I call the latter group "helpful strangers". They can do things such as
fixing categories, fixing invalid wiki syntax, editing templates, adding
images, etc.—things that don't require knowing the language well, and can
be achieved by copying and pasting, by guessing things from interlanguage
links, or by writing language-neutral things, such as numbers or filenames.

Now, I've written "relatively low" and "relatively high", but these are
just my anecdotal impressions. Has anyone thought of a way to quantify this
more precisely?

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Country (culture...) as a factor in contributing to collective intelligence projects

[Amir E. Aharoni]

Very interesting and much-needee research. Thanks for doing this. I'd love
to see the results and even the process.

Some things to consider:
1. How long is the tradition of having published encyclopedias in that
culture?
2. Alphabet: Using a common alphabet may make it somewhat easier to
translate information between languages that use it, especially for things
like towns and biographies. The Korean alphabet is used only by one
language, but the Latin and the Cyrillic alphabets are used by many (with
variations).
3. How long is the tradition of *actually* having public education for
everybody: rich and poor, cities and villages? By "actually" I mean "not
just by law, but in practice".
4. How long is the tradition of mostly-universal literacy? ("Literacy" is
one of the most fuzzily defined concepts. Here I refer to something like
"being able to read a newspaper and to write a one-page letter in one's own
native language".)
5. How long is the tradition of having public libraries in most towns and
villages?
6. How common is it to know other languages?
7. How isolated or open is the society that speaks this language in terms
of access to media from other countries, translation of literature from
other languages, travel to other countries?
8. How widespread are basic computer literacy skills: using a web browser;
sending an email; copying, down/uploading, and deleting files.
9. How long is the tradition of having language resources, such as
dictionaries, spelling standards, thesauri, style guides?
10. Is the language used completely in public education for teaching,
textbooks, and homework? Or is the education mostly done in a foreign
language? (This, roughly, is the situation in the Philippines and in many
African countries.)
11. When did the language become an official language of a country? (If at
all.)
12. Are there political, cultural, or government-suported movements for
language development or preservation?
13. When did it become universally possible to fully write this language on
a computer, with complete keyboards and fonts support? E.g., English has
been easy to use on any computer for as long as there are computers;
Polish, German, Russian and many other languages have been supported for a
long time, but still struggled with encodings and diacritics in the 1990s;
India and Burma are still struggling; I'm not sure about Korea.

These are the immediate things I can think about. There are probably many
more criteria that could be considered.

The economics around a country are probably very important (poverty, access
to infrastructure, healthcare, etc.), and you mentioned in your first email
that you accounted for it, although I don't know in how much detail, so I
trust you on that :)


בתאריך 24 ביולי 2018 12:04,‏ "Piotr Konieczny"  כתב:

Dear all,

I am working on a paper on why/whether people contribute (or not) to
collective intelligence differently projects in different countries. The
paper was inspired, partially, by several discussions I had with various
people on why different language Wikipedia's have different sizes,
besides (doh) the popularity of the language (and yes, English is
biggest because it is international; and yes, I am aware a few
Wikipedias are outliers because of bots creating machine translations or
auto-populating villages or such). But for example, Poland and South
Korea have roughly similar population/speakers and development status,
yet Polish Wikipedia is over 3x the size of the SK one and no bot can
account for that. So, there's more to that. I am already feeding dozens
of parameters to a spreadsheet for some modelling, but I a) wonder what
I might have missed - before a reviewer asks 'why didn't you check for
xyz' and b) would like to have a few nice sentences about how things
that people expect to matter do not (or vice versa). Hence, my question
to you all, in the form of this open question mini survey:

Why do you think different language Wikipedia's have different sizes,
outside of the popularity of a given language?

For reference, list of Wikipedias by size and language:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias

TIA!


-- 
Piotr Konieczny, PhD
http://hanyang.academia.edu/PiotrKonieczny
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEJ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus


___
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] Gaps

[Amir E. Aharoni]

Heather,

Thanks for starting this thread.

Where can I read your research that comes to the conclusion that automated
mechanisms are insufficient for solving the gaps problem?

Sorry if this was mentioned somewhere already; I sometimes get lost on long
emails, and it's possible that I missed it :)


בתאריך 9 בפבר׳ 2018 05:04,‏ "Heather Ford"  כתב:

Having a look at the new WMF research site, I noticed that it seems that
notification and recommendations mechanisms are the key strategy being
focused on re. the filling of Wikipedia's content gaps. Having just
finished a research project on just this problem and coming to the opposite
conclusion i.e. that automated mechanisms were insufficient for solving the
gaps problem, I was curious to find out more.

This latest research that I was involved in with colleagues was based on an
action research project aiming to fill gaps in topics relating to South
Africa. The team tried a range of different strategies discussed in the
literature for filling Wikipedia's gaps without any wild success. Automated
mechanisms that featured missing and incomplete articles catalysed very few
edits.

When looking for related research, it seemed that others had come to a
similar conclusion i.e. that automated notification/recommendations alone
didn't lead to improvements in particular target areas. That makes me think
that a) I just haven't come across the right research or b) that there are
different types of gaps and that those different types require different
solutions i.e. the difference between filling gaps across language
versions, gaps created by incomplete articles about topics for which there
are few online/reliable sources is different from the lack of articles
about topics for which there are many online/reliable sources, gaps in
articles about particular topics, relating to particular geographic areas
etc.

Does anyone have any insight here? - either on research that would help
practitioners decide how to go about a project of filling gaps in a
particular subject area or about whether the key focus of research at the
WMF is on filling gaps via automated means such as recommendation and
notification mechanisms?

Many thanks!

Best,
Heather.
___
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] today's survey

[Amir E. Aharoni]

I think that I understand WereSpiekChequers problem. I received similar
feedback from an experienced Hebrew Wikipedia editor: he said he was
disappointed that "I was reading this article to fibd something to improve".

I guess that this is a very common reason for experienced Wikipedians, but
not necessarily for casual readers, at whom this survey is targeted, and
that's why it's not a suggested answer. But go figure, maybe there are more
people who want to improve Wikipedia than we think there are... :)

בתאריך 22 ביוני 2017 06:09 PM,‏ "Leila Zia"  כתב:

> Hi,
>
> [for others who may not know what this question is referring to: we
> starting running surveys in 14 languages a couple of hours ago. These
> surveys will help us expand the result of Why We Read Wikipedia to
> more languages. The 14 languages participating are documented at
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_
> Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Robustness_across_languages#
> Participating_languages
> .]
>
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 4:57 PM, WereSpielChequers
>  wrote:
> >
> > Hi, if anyone on this list was involved in today's survey
>
> here I am. :)
>
> >
> > you lost my
> > response at "
> >
> > I am reading this article to *
> >
> >- get an overview of the topic.
> >- get an in-depth understanding of the topic.
> >- look up a specific fact or to get a quick answer.
>
>
> There is no way for us to unfortunately enter this response as part of
> our pool of responses as we will need to know the unique ID which gets
> generated for your specific survey session to be able to use this
> response further. :(
>
> > Making people choose one of those options loses anyone who is there to
> find
> > a typo or for any other reason.
>
> I'm not following this part. Can you help me understand your
> suggestion? The goal of the survey is to help us understand the
> prevalence of Wikipedia use-cases across languages and help us
> characterize these use-cases in each language as a function of the
> data in webrequest logs associated with the survey session. The setup
> of the survey is not to accommodate the other use-cases you mentioned.
>
> Best,
> Leila
>
>
> >
> > ___
> > 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
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Survey of Welsh Wicipedia's readership

[Amir E. Aharoni]

These are valid questions, and I am curious about them as well.

The suggested reasons for choosing Welsh over English are valid as well,
and I would add a couple more:

1. They study in a Welsh school and had to research the topic for a
homework assignment, which they have to write in Welsh.

2. They heard about this topic in a Welsh radio or TV program, or read
about it in a Welsh book, newspaper, or website. They wanted to know more,
and it made more sense to continue in Welsh.

בתאריך 17 ביוני 2017 03:30 AM,‏ "Kerry Raymond" 
כתב:

> Now this question may reveal my ignorance about the Welsh language and/or
> the Welsh Wikipedia and/or my own monolingualism (I don't read any other
> language well enough to attempt to read it in a non-English Wikiepdia), but
> English Wikipedia says that "Most Welsh-speaking people in Wales also speak
> English" and Welsh Wikipedia has 91K articles to English Wikipedia's 5M+.
>
> Given the above, I am somewhat curious why the survey did not ask about
> the ability to speak English and the extent of usage of English Wikipedia
> and what factors made them choose to read one or the other. Given that most
> of the respondents are probably bi-lingual (to some degree) as readers, it
> would seem that they are probably reading English Wikipedia to some extent
> given its far wider coverage. So when and why do they choose to read Welsh
> Wikipedia? My guess is that it may be for reasons related to the Welsh
> language itself:
>
> * as first preference because their Welsh reading is better than their
> English reading (preferable)
> * as first preference because despite being equally or more fluent in
> English because they want to support the Welsh language (patriotism)
> * as first preference because despite being equally or more fluent in
> English they want to maintain or improve their Welsh language skills by
> reading in that language (learning)
>
> or because of the content:
>
> * because the topic of interest is only on Welsh Wikipedia (necessity)
> * because the topic of interest is on both Welsh and English Wikipedia and
> so reading both is likely to provide more information than reading just one
> (comprehensive)
> * as a second preference because the topic was not adequately covered on
> English Wikipedia and it is hoped it is better covered in Welsh Wikipedia
> (unsatisfied)
>
> Are there other reasons?
>
> Off-hand, does anyone have a sense of the coverage of Welsh Wikipedia? To
> what extent is it providing articles on topics not on English Wikipedia or
> much better covered than on English Wikipedia, vs providing articles on
> similar topics to English Wikipedia (possibly shorter) but in Welsh? That
> is, what do the goals of the writers of Welsh Wikipedia appear to be? Does
> it lean towards providing specific Welsh content or providing generic
> content in Welsh?
>
> I realise you can ask the same questions about any other language
> Wikipedia vs English Wikipedia, but for many other languages, there will be
> many people who speak the other language far more fluently than English (or
> may not speak English at all). But this seems to be less likely to be the
> case for Welsh-vs-English.
>
> Kerry
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> On Behalf Of Richard Nevell
> Sent: Friday, 16 June 2017 11:40 PM
> To: wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Survey of Welsh Wicipedia's readership
>
> Hello,
>
> Earlier this year Wikimedia UK conducted a survey of Welch Wicipedia's
> readers. We wanted to learn more about their demographics and why they
> chose to read c. 1001 people filled in the survey and the results are
> available on meta-wiki in English  wiki/Research:Readership_of_Welsh_Wicipedia>
> and Welsh
>  arolwg_o_ddarllenwyr_Wicipedia_Cymraeg>
> .
>
> Richard Nevell
> --
> Richard Nevell
> Project Coordinator
> Wikimedia UK - sign up to our newsletter 
> +44 (0) 20 7065 0921 <020%207065%200921>
>
> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
> Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
> Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
> United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
> movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
> operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
>
> *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
> over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
> ___
> 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
> 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

[Amir E. Aharoni]

I actually suspect that Twinkle is ones of the causes of the famous
flattening of the growth that happened in 2007. Twinkle was introduced
around the same time. Telling new people they are doing something wrong
became too easy, and sticking around became less fun. Though operated by
humans, Twinkle is almost the same as a bot.

בתאריך 22 בפבר׳ 2017 17:36,‏ "Kerry Raymond"  כתב:

> I agree that we appreciate personal praise over automatically-generated
> praise. But I think the Twinkle approach is a good middle ground. I welcome
> new users and IPs all the time but use Twinkle to automate the task, but it
> still comes from me, a real user who has seen their contribution, and I do
> stand willing to help them as the automated message says. This is why I say
> to build the tools that let projects etc identify likely candidates but the
> message (automated or not) must come from a user genuinely willing to
> assist with bringing the new user into the group and its activities
> (onboarding).
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 22 Feb 2017, at 10:40 am, David Goodman  wrote:
>
> what mattered to me was personal appreciation of my work--just as it did
> in my primary career. Not form notices, but  individual public comments
> that from people who showed that they understood. There is no way of
> automating that. The virtues of wikiprojects  (and local meetups) is of
> extending that appreciation more broadly and more intensely.
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
>> Hi Gerard,
>>
>> I am cautiously optimistic that Wikipedia is sustainable for the long
>> term. (If I was not, I would not be here.) The nature and number of
>> contributors may continue to shift over time; perhaps someday there will be
>> so few volunteers in certain areas of running Wikipedia (Arbcom comes to
>> mind as a particularly demanding, thankless, high-stress role for which I
>> do not ever think I will volunteer) that WMF will have little choice but to
>> pay people at least stipends for the work to get done in a timely and
>> reasonably high quality manner. But I am cautiously optimistic about the
>> quality of many of the volunteers that we do have. Also, I am cautiously
>> optimistic that we can *improve* both the quality and quantity of those
>> volunteers, as well as the quantity and quality of the participants in
>> education, GLAM, and affiliate programs related to Wikimedia.
>>
>> I have observed that criticizing the admins as a group is somewhat
>> common. While I have met a few admins that I would consider removing from
>> office if I had the choice, I have also met several admins who do their
>> jobs competently, helpfully, and tactfully. I'd like to see more of the
>> good and less of the bad, and I think that there are actions that can be
>> taken to encourage that, for the admin corps and for the Wikimedia
>> population in general. The situation will never be perfect, but we can make
>> small course adjustments over time that may have a positive long-term
>> cumulative effect.
>>
>> Pine
>>
>>
>>
>> Pine
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
>> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> What you call a career I call a dead end. What I find is that all too
>>> often these careermen (typically) insist on their superiority and point of
>>> view. It results in a bias that has people say that it takes 10 sources
>>> even for something like a stub, it negates notability as it is not as they
>>> see it; consequently the sum of all knowledge is not served well. I also
>>> find that it has ossified what we do and the result is that we know
>>> arguments as what we do and not what we have.
>>>
>>> What you call a career, I see as a dead end. There are enough things
>>> that can be done that do help us along but the admin side you promote is
>>> hardly healthy.
>>> Thanks,
>>>GerardM
>>>
>>>
>>> Op di 21 feb. 2017 om 02:34 schreef Pine W 
>>>
 Hi Kerry,

 Thanks for the ideas. Jonathan Morgan, Aaron Halfaker, and I have had
 more than one conversation about wikiprojects as a way to engage with new
 editors. Unfortunately, there are a lot of derelict wikiprojects.

 I have some ideas about how to improve the training system for ENWP and
 Commons in particular. But that's different from the motivation issue,
 which I think is more challenging. With enough money and time, the training
 system can be upgraded. I'm not sure if the same is true for motivation. I
 have the impression that student Wikimedians are mostly motivated by grades
 (hence the precipitous decline in their participation after their Wikipedia
 Education Program class ends), and many other people are motivated by money
 or PR (hence we get a lot of people engaging in promotionalism or PR
 management.) It's not clear to me how someone goes from being wiki-curious
 to feeling 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

[Amir E. Aharoni]

2017-02-21 17:56 GMT+02:00 Melody Kramer (ET) :


> Another fun experiment: a blood bank in Sweden texts donors to thank them
> after donating, and then AGAIN when the blood is actually used:
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/blood-
> donors-in-sweden-get-a-text-message-whenever-someone-is-
> helped-with-their-blood-10310101.html
>
> So basically, they're reminding people of how their contribution is used.
>
>
>
Ohhh, thank you so much for this example. How I wish we did more of
that :/

As a volunteer I've been translating strings for MediaWiki and its
extensions for over eight years, and I get a happiness shot every time I
see my string used on the live site. It still excites me after thousands of
strings just as it did the first time in 2009.

I wish we told people that the article they wrote was read by X people, for
example (WordPress.com and Quora do it nicely). Or to tell them that it was
translated to other languages (our team plans to do it as part of Content
Translation, but it wasn't done yet).

When I get code patches from volunteers, I try to notify them when their
fix goes live on wikipedia.org or if it helped solving another problem
(e.g. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T106632#3042650 ), but I don't do
it systematically enough, and it's certainly not a process that everybody
follows.

We really need to do it.

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Thinking big: scaling up Wikimedia's contributor population by two orders of magnitude

[Amir E. Aharoni]

I agree with pretty much all that Bob says here, except one important
point: This is probably correct for Wikipedia in English, and maybe a few
other very big languages.

A rarely remembered fact: most people don't know English.

In other languages there's much work to do in writing articles on math,
history, geography, medicine and what not (and dictionaries and textbooks
and public domain works), but a lot of potential people who would do it
fall into two categories:

1. People who know English and can read the English Wikipedia article and
don't notice that an article in their language is missing.
2. People who don't know English and can neither translate from the English
Wikipedia nor other English-only sources.

The upcoming Task List feature in Content Translation (
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T96147 ) will try to address this by
giving people a more convenient way to see the gaps and fill them, although
it will be only a technical tool, which cannot solve everything by itself.
As Bob notes, targeted outreach to experts will be needed as well.

בתאריך 28 באוג׳ 2016 22:27,‏ "Bob Kosovsky"  כתב:

I've been active with Wikipedia since 2006. My impression (which
corresponds with data) is that 2008 was the year with the highest number of
editors on English Wikipedia. While it may sound good on paper, in some
ways it was a mess because of the frequency of vandalism. Nowadays I know
there are more automated techniques for detecting vandalism, but if you
want to increase the number of users just to make the stats look good,
you're going to get more dubious data into the encyclopedia as well as
frustration from editors who dislike spending their time on so much
maintenance (although I'm sure there are some editors who would jump at the
chance to make corrections all day).

I suspected from the outset of Wikipedia's creation that the project would
mirror the well-known "life cycle of email lists" as I've always believed
Wikipedia is a "social encyclopedia."  I feel this well-known meme
accurately reflect's Wikipedia's evolution so I repeat it here as a tool
from which to learn:

*1. Initial enthusiasm* (people introduce themselves, and gush a lot about
how wonderful it is to find kindred souls).

*2. Evangelism* (people moan about how few folks are posting to the list,
and brainstorm recruitment strategies).

*3. Growth* (more and more people join, more and more lengthy threads
develop, occasional off-topic threads pop up).

*4. Community* (lots of threads, some more relevant than others; lots of
information and advice is exchanged; experts help other experts as well as
less experienced colleagues; friendships develop; people tease each other;
newcomers are welcomed with generosity and patience; everyone -- newbie and
expert alike -- feels comfortable asking questions, suggesting answers, and
sharing opinions).

*5. Discomfort with diversity* (the number of messages increases
dramatically; not every thread is fascinating to every reader; people start
complaining about the signal-to-noise ratio; person 1 threatens to quit if
*other* people don't limit discussion to person 1's pet topic; person 2
agrees with person 1; person 3 tells 1 & 2 to lighten up; more bandwidth is
wasted complaining about off-topic threads than is used for the threads
themselves; everyone gets annoyed).

*6a. Smug complacency and stagnation* (the purists flame everyone who asks
an 'old' question or responds with humor to a serious post; newbies are
rebuffed; traffic drops to a doze-producing level of a few minor issues;
all interesting discussions happen by private email and are limited to a
few participants; the purists spend lots of time self-righteously
congratulating each other on keeping off-topic threads off the list).

*OR*

*6b. Maturity* (a few people quit in a huff; the rest of the participants
stay near stage 4, with stage 5 popping up briefly every few weeks; many
people wear out their second or third 'delete' key, but the list lives
contentedly ever after).


I feel Wikipedia is at stage 6 (both a and b). Unless there's a significant
change in functionality and design, the days of 2008 will never return, and
we should stop bothering to think it's possible to replicate them (because
their existence was due to the novelty of the project).

Instead, I think Wikimedia projects should cultivate those individuals with
specialized knowledge.  A lot of these people are in specialized
communities (for example educators, medical professionals,
researchers/scholars, devoted amateurs).  These are communities which
formerly looked down on Wikipedia but now are reconsidering their formerly
negative opinions of the encyclopedia. I feel the as-yet small successes in
the medical and GLAM communities (I am sure there are others) show great
promise. Being part of the GLAM community, I know there are outreach
efforts underway to others within that community. Being part of WM NYC, I
know there's a lot of librarians 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Thinking big: scaling up Wikimedia's contributor population by two orders of magnitude

[Amir E. Aharoni]

The English Wikipedia alone has hundreds of thousands of items to fix -
missing references, misspellings, etc. The problems are nicely sorted at
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_backlog . There are
millions of other things to fix in other projects. So quality is getting
higher in many ways, but the amount of stuff to fix is still enormous.

What we don't have is an easy way for new people to start eliminating items
from the backlogs. The Wikidata games are a nice step in the right
direction, but their appeal to new participants is non-existent.

בתאריך 27 באוג׳ 2016 10:14,‏ "Pine W"  כתב:

> Thinking big here: popular internationalized computer games can have 10+
> million unit sales. Some of the most popular online games have millions of
> monthly active users. I'm wondering if the research community, including
> Design Research, can envision a way for Wikimedia to scale up from 80,000
> active monthly users to 8,000,000 active monthly users.
>
> What would we need in order to stimulate and nourish this kind of growth?
>
> What can we learn from popular internationalized games about design that
> could benefit Wikimedia on a large scale?
>
> Pine
>
> ___
> 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

[Wiki-research-l] link trails in different languages

[Amir E. Aharoni]

Hi,

Here's a fun simple little idea:

Did anybody ever try to find what are the most common link trails wikis in
different languages?

In English, for example, the two most common ones will probably be "s" and
"es", in links like [[bottle]]s and [[box]]es; these two possibly appear
millions of times in the English Wikipedia. And there are certainly many
other common trails in English.

In other languages they will be different.

I can easily do it myself some time by running on a dump. Just wondering
whether anybody already tried it.

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] frequency of defaultsort usage

[Amir E. Aharoni]

Hi,

It's probably not the most important thing to research but just out of
curiosity... Did anybody compare the frequency of {{DEFAULTSORT}} usage in
Wikipedias in different languages?

I just realized that in Japanese it is _probably_ used more frequently than
in other languages, maybe because sorting by Japanese Kanji characters is
suboptimal (that's just a guess—if you know better, please tell me).

By the same logic, I'd guess that it's used less in Russian and Ukrainian,
because they have the custom of titling articles about people with the last
name first.

Again, it's not the most important thing, but it could inform some editing
design in the future.

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
___
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 help finding tools to measure UNESCO project

[Amir E. Aharoni]

Thanks for this email.

This raises a wider question: What is the comfortable way to compare the
coverage of a topic in different languages?

For example, I'd love to see a report that says:

Number of articles about UNESCO cultural heritage:
English Wikipedia: 1000
French Wikipedia: 1200
Hebrew Wikipedia: 742
etc.

And also to track this over time, so if somebody would work hard on
creating articles about UNESCO cultural heritage in Hebrew, I'd see a trend
graph.

Of course, this can be relevant to any topic.


--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬

2015-10-02 13:43 GMT+03:00 john cummings :

> Hi All
>
> This is my first time posing on this list, I'm sorry if it is perhaps a
> little off topic. I'm currently Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO and plan
> to run an online collaboration, a little bit like a short term Wikiproject
> with two main goals:
>
>
>- Help organise reuse of UNESCO content on Wikimedia projects (UNESCO
>has released content under an open license and will do more shortly).
>
>
>- Help improve content on Wikimedia of the subjects of UNESCO
>programmes e.g the World Heritage Sites.
>
>
> I have been planning ways that I can use tools to:
>
>
>- Organise work for contributors across all languages
>- Provide contributors feedback on their contributions (e.g page views
>for all contributions combined)
>- Measure success of the project.
>
>
> I've been doing this on wiki here
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Cummings/Planning_UNESCO_metrics
>
> In short I'm finding it very hard to find the tools needed, I have found
> less than a third of what I think would be helpful but found others that
> may be tangentially useful which I've added in.
>
> Any help would be appreciate, please feel free to comment here, on the
> talk page or just add tools to the fields
>
> Thanks
>
> John
>
> ___
> 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] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] statistics about frequent section titles

[Amir E. Aharoni]

Yes, that's the idea more or less, but I'm not sure that our search engine
is able to search for headings, though I might be wrong. I suspect,
however, that it will be required to process dumps article by article (or
at least a random sample), and in big projects this could be extremely time
consuming.But maybe there's a faster way of which I am not aware?


--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬

2015-07-13 23:41 GMT+03:00 Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com:

 Would it be possible to run a search on the full text of Wikipedias for
 lines that start and end with ==, ===, , and lines that start
 with ;, then make a list of those strings, and count the number of times
 that each title appears in the list?

 Pine
 On Jul 13, 2015 10:29 AM, Jonathan Morgan jmor...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Cross-posting this request to wiki-research-l. Anyone have data on
 frequently used section titles in articles (any language), or know of
 datasets/publications that examined this?

 I'm not aware of any off the top of my head, Amir.

 - Jonathan

 -- Forwarded message --
 From: Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il
 Date: Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 3:29 AM
 Subject: [Wikitech-l] statistics about frequent section titles
 To: Wikimedia developers wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org


 Hi,

 Did anybody ever try to collect statistics about frequent section titles
 in
 Wikimedia projects?

 For Wikipedia, for example, titles such as Biography, Early life,
 Bibliography, External links, References, History, etc., appear in
 a lot of articles, and their counterparts appear in a lot of languages.

 There are probably similar things in Wikivoyage, Wiktionary and possibly
 other projects.

 Did anybody ever try to collect statistics of the most frequent section
 titles in each language and project?

 --
 Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
 http://aharoni.wordpress.com
 ‪“We're living in pieces,
 I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
 ___
 Wikitech-l mailing list
 wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l



 --
 Jonathan T. Morgan
 Senior Design Researcher
 Wikimedia Foundation
 User:Jmorgan (WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)


 ___
 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


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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Kill the bots

[Amir E. Aharoni]

People whose last name is Abbot will be discriminated.

And a true story: A prominent human Catalan Wikipedia editor whose name is
PauCabot skewed the results of an actual study.

So don't trust just the user names.
בתאריך 18 במאי 2014 19:34, מאת Andrew G. West west.andre...@gmail.com:

 User name policy states that *bot* names are reserved for bots. Thus,
 such a regex shouldn't be too hacky, but I cannot comment whether some
 non-automated cases might slip through new user patrol. I do think dumps
 make the 'users' table available, and I know for sure one could get a full
 list via the API.

 As a check on this, you could check that when these usernames edit,
 whether or not they set the bot flag. -AW

 --
 Andrew G. West, PhD
 Research Scientist
 Verisign Labs - Reston, VA
 Website: http://www.andrew-g-west.com


 On 05/18/2014 12:10 PM, Brian Keegan wrote:

 Is there a way to retrieve a canonical list of bots on enwiki or
 elsewhere? I'm interested in omitting automated revisions (sorry
 Stuart!) for the purposes of building co-authorship networks.

 Grabbing everything under 'Category:All Wikipedia bots' excludes some
 major ones like SmackBot, Cydebot, VIAFbot, Full-date unlinking bot,
 etc. because these bots have changed names but the redirect is not
 categorized, the account has been removed/deprecated, or a user appears
 to have removed the relevant bot categories from the page.

 Can anyone advise me on how to kill all the bots in my data without
 having to resort to manual cleaning or hacky regex?


 --
 Brian C. Keegan, Ph.D.
 Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Lazer Lab
 College of Social Sciences and Humanities, Northeastern University
 Fellow, Institute for Quantitative Social Sciences, Harvard University
 Affiliate, Berkman Center for Internet  Society, Harvard Law School

 b.kee...@neu.edu mailto:b.kee...@neu.edu
 www.brianckeegan.com http://www.brianckeegan.com
 M: 617.803.6971
 O: 617.373.7200
 Skype: bckeegan


 ___
 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

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

[Wiki-research-l] published articles about Wikipedia translation

[Amir E. Aharoni]

Hi,

Is there any list of academic studies of Wikimedia projects sorted or
tagged by topic? In particular I'm interested in anything to do with
translation, but it is useful for other topics as well.

The best thing that I could think of now is going to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_studies_of_Wikipedia
and searching the page for translation.

Is there a more structured way?

Thanks!

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] identifying Wikipedia article topics

[Amir E. Aharoni]

It's not so much topics, as I wrote in the email subject, but more like
types, as I wrote in the email body. Sorry about the confusion.

We are getting serious about analyzing how do people translate articles.
Basically, all articles are worth translating, but we may find, for
example, that Wikipedia has 60% biographies, 30% articles about places and
10% articles about math, but of the translated articles, 80% are about
places, and biographies and and math are 10% each. So if this will be the
case, we may want to understand why don't people translate articles about
biographies and math more - are they simply less interesting? is it harder
for some social reason? for some technical reason? If there is something
that we can do to make translation easier, we may want to do it.

This example is, of course, highly simplified and the numbers are
completely made up, but I hope that it explains the intention.

Now when I say biographies, articles about places and articles about
math, it's immediately clear and intuitive to a person what I'm talking
about. I am asking whether there is a known easy way for software to
understand such things.


--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬


2014-03-18 14:34 GMT+02:00 Ziko van Dijk zvand...@gmail.com:

 Hello Amir,
 The question rising would be for me: what do you use the
 classification for? Depending on that you can get a lot different
 answers. The biography of Otto von Bismarck may be in the category
 history, the biography of Justin Bieber in entertainment.
 Kind regards
 Ziko

 2014-03-18 8:31 GMT+01:00 Maik Anderka maik.ande...@uni-paderborn.de:
  Dear Amir,
 
  two years ago, we have utilized Wikipedia categories to analyze the
  distribution of articles over a set of main topics. We used the 24 direct
  subcategories of Category:Main topic classifications as main topics.
 For
  further information, see Section 4.2 in this paper:
 
 http://www.uni-weimar.de/medien/webis/publications/papers/stein_2012d.pdf
 
  Best regards,
  Maik
 
  --
  Maik Anderka
  Research Group Knowledge-Based Systems
  Department of Computer Science
  University of Paderborn, Germany
  http://www.uni-paderborn.de/cs/ag-klbue
 
 
  Am 17.03.2014 16:21, schrieb Amir E. Aharoni:
 
  Hallo,
 
  Is there any known easy way to classify Wikipedia articles into a
 relatively
  small number of types?
 
  By relatively small I mean no more than twenty, and by types I mean
  things that are intuitively clear to readers, for example:
  * Biographies
  * Articles about scientific phenomena (can be sub-grouped to math,
  astronomy, physics, geology, medicine)
  * Articles about works of art (paintings, movies, books, records,
 statues)
  * Articles about places
  * Articles about historical events
  * Articles about biological species
  * Articles that mostly present data, such as demography or results of
  competitions (sports, elections, game shows)
 
  There are a few more, but not much. I hope that you get the idea.
 
  We have categories, but I'm not sure that it's easy to use categories for
  such things because of the very loose category structure. For example,
  [[Eurovision 2007]] is somewhere under [[Category:Humans]], even though
 it's
  not an article about a human.
 
  Such information can be useful for study about the types of articles that
  different people write. In particular, I thought about it in the context
 of
  analyzing the types of articles that people are translating now
 (manually)
  and will translate in the future using the ContentTranslation, which is
 in
  its early stages of development.
 
  Thanks,
 
  --
  Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
  http://aharoni.wordpress.com
  ‪“We're living in pieces,
  I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
 
 
  ___
  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
 

 ___
 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

[Wiki-research-l] identifying Wikipedia article topics

[Amir E. Aharoni]

Hallo,

Is there any known easy way to classify Wikipedia articles into a
relatively small number of types?

By relatively small I mean no more than twenty, and by types I mean
things that are intuitively clear to readers, for example:
* Biographies
* Articles about scientific phenomena (can be sub-grouped to math,
astronomy, physics, geology, medicine)
* Articles about works of art (paintings, movies, books, records, statues)
* Articles about places
* Articles about historical events
* Articles about biological species
* Articles that mostly present data, such as demography or results of
competitions (sports, elections, game shows)

There are a few more, but not much. I hope that you get the idea.

We have categories, but I'm not sure that it's easy to use categories for
such things because of the very loose category structure. For example,
[[Eurovision 2007]] is somewhere under [[Category:Humans]], even though
it's not an article about a human.

Such information can be useful for study about the types of articles that
different people write. In particular, I thought about it in the context of
analyzing the types of articles that people are translating now (manually)
and will translate in the future using the ContentTranslation, which is in
its early stages of development.

Thanks,

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] how find language switch codings? [[xx:xxxxxxxx...]]

[Amir E. Aharoni]

I'm not sure of what do you mean by language switch. Do you mean
adding, removing or changing a link to a version of the article in
another language?

If that's what you mean, then you should indeed search for
[[code:title]], and note that the 'code' part is one of the 270 or so
language codes that we use. Wikis in new languages are opened every
few weeks, so the list of codes is growing. You can find a full and
reasonably current list here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias

You should also speak to some of the bot operators, because they
already have code that does such things. For example, speak to
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Volkov

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬


2012/5/5  koltzenb...@w4w.net:
 Hi @all,

 I am looking into cases of language switch and I wish to find edits not 
 undertaken by bots,
 - how can I do such a search in Wikipedia? would I do this by a search that 
 involves a string similar to
 [[xx:...]]?
 - where would I find the entry point for such a search?

 maybe there are some better ideas about how to proceed ;-)

 thanks  cheers,
 Claudia
 koltzenb...@w4w.net

 ___
 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] long in tooth: ignoring recent scholarship

[Amir E. Aharoni]

2012/5/3 Richard Jensen rjen...@uic.edu:
 Looking at a spinoff Shakespeare article: [[Shakespeare's plays]]. It's peak
 activity year was 2007.  A dozen people made 10 or more edits.  It has 26
 citations and no bibliography.  There are no scholarly journals. Half the
 citations are over 40 years old. Only one book was published after 2007.
  That profile strongly suggests editors who are unfamiliar with current
 scholarship.

I sense low-hanging fruit here. What academic wouldn't want his paper
to be cited more? Wikipedia is not an academic source, but it's a
hugely popular one. A correctly-done campaign to get academics and
their students to cite recently published papers will benefit
everybody.

 Happily the article on [[WIlliam Shakespeare's Style]] is MUCH more
 up-to-date.  

... Which shows that a lot of is very intermittent and haphazard, but
often in a good way.

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] long in tooth.

[Amir E. Aharoni]

2012/5/2 Richard Jensen rjen...@uic.edu:
 I am looking at the edit history of a number of major articles on historical
 topics (in the English Wikipedia)

A random sample, or something systematic?

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] New toolbox Wikipedia pages

[Amir E. Aharoni]

2011/1/25 Felipe Ortega glimmer_phoe...@yahoo.es

 Hi all.

 I just discovered this, it may be potentially interesting for the Wikipedia
 research community.

 In short, now for any Wikipedia page, not only articles, e.g.

More precisely, for any English Wikipedia page. This tool is useful
for all languages, but it was implemented only in some Wikipedias.

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