Re: [Wiki-research-l] Thinking big: scaling up Wikimedia's contributor population by two orders of magnitude
That really depends on how you define 'gamification'. To me, the gamification is not the leaderboards, but exactly the elements you mention - the splitting of the whole into simple microtasks plus giving out those microtasks to users for a large part at random. In fact, I usually play the 'distributed' version of the wikidata game, and as far as I know there is no scoring or leaderboard there at all, but I would still say the whole is gamified. Andre Engels On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Mark J. Nelson wrote: > > Dario Taraborelli writes: > >> *Gamified interfaces for microcontributions à la Wikidata game*. >> (per GerardM) there's absolutely no doubt this model is effective at >> creating a large volume of high-quality edits, and value to the project and >> communities. > > I agree on these interfaces, but at least in my use of them, and that of > the other people I know who use them, the 'gamification' part is a red > herring and not why we use them: the important part is the interface and > its functionality. The confusing point/leaderboard system (which I never > check) isn't really a draw, but the tools are actually useful to do > things that are tedious otherwise, and at least somewhat enjoyable to > use. It's useful that it tries to find e.g. new articles that might > match an existing Wikidata topic but are unlinked, and presents > side-by-side information that helps quickly eliminate some false > positives, with a fast interface where you just press '1', '2', or '3' > on the keyboard to move on. > > So a different way of looking at this category is: interfaces to make > microcontributions non-tedious, and easy to curate in a > "dashboard-style" way. Those interfaces might or might not have some > gamification layer too, but I don't think that's the important part. > > Best, > Mark > > -- > Mark J. Nelson > The MetaMakers Institute > Falmouth University > http://www.kmjn.org > > ___ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.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] Alexa ranking of Wikiversity
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > As in physics the nature and limitations of any measuring tool and > concept is part of your research. Personal use of the Alexa toolbar > affects measurements only when what one, or a few, persons do matters in > the statistics. That's not really true - apart from the statistical error, there are also systematic errors, and those remain when a single person is insignificant enough not to influence the statistics. For example, it used to be (I haven't checked recently) that Korean files came out relatively high in the Alexa rankings - presumably because the Alexa toolbar usage was high in Korea. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.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] Topical Coverage of Wikipedia
2008/2/15, Andrew Krizhanovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Is this article available online? > Or only for users which have Athens login? For me there are links to the full text of the article at the bottom, and I don't think I have any special logins. -- Andre Engels, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Demo: coloring the text of the Wikipedia according to its trust
2007/7/29, Luca de Alfaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > We first analyze the whole English Wikipedia, computing the reputation of > each author at every point in time, so that we can answer questions like > "what was the reputation of author with id 453 at 5:32 pm of March 14, > 2006". The reputation is computed according to the idea of content-driven > reputation. > > For new portions of text, the trust is equal to (a scaling function of) the > reputation of the text author. > Portions of text that were already present in the previous revision can gain > reputation when the page is revised by higher-reputation authors, especially > if those authors perform an edit in proximity of the portion of text. > Portions of text can also lose trust, if low-reputation authors edit in > their proximity. > All the algorithms are still very preliminary, and I must still apply a > rigorous learning approach to optimize the computation. > Please see the demo page for more details. One thing I find peculiar is that adding a text somewhere can lower the trust of the surrounding text while at the same thing heightening that of far away text. Why is that? See for example http://enwiki-trust.cse.ucsc.edu/index.php?title=Collation&diff=prev&oldid=102784135 - trust:6 text is added between trust:8 text, causing the surrounding text to go down to trust:6 or even trust:5, but at the same time improving text elsewhere in the page from trust:8 to trust:9. Why would the author count as low-reputation for the direct environment, but high-reputation farther away? -- Andre Engels, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] History of discussion pages
2007/4/2, Nicholas Moreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Okay, maybe it wasn't you, but I remember hearing (don't remember the > source) that before Wikipedia was launched, everybody discussed everything > on the mainpage, mainly because there was no talk page feature. I guess I'm > just spreading stories. I know that in the old days of Wikipedia, discussion pages were normal pages titled [[Title/Talk]]. On the page itself, a link could be created with the text [[/Talk]]. The current method of having a specific namespace for that was I think created together with the current software, in which case Magnus Manske would be the person to praise for it. -- Andre Engels, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
