Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia's response to 2012 Aurora shooting

[Martin Hellberg Olsson]

Very interesting discussion this, digging into precisely the things I was
trying to get at in the time I could title myself a Wikipedia researcher.
If I can focus enough, and feel I actually have something to add, I might
try to contribute intelligently myself. For now: reading with GREAT
interest.

Best,
Martin

2012/7/24 Kerry Raymond 

>  My original point about walking together alone vs in a crowd was to
> illustrate that the same data (the relative movements of  the two people)
> can have two different interpretations depending on context. I was trying
> to illustrate the danger of  quantitative analysis without validation from
> qualitative sources.
>
> ** **
>
> I was not presenting it as an example of collaboration or anything else.
> However, since the topic has arisen, ...
>
> ** **
>
> I think there needs to be a shared goal for collaboration. Thus most WP
> editors are “collaborating” because they have the shared goal of building a
> bigger and better encyclopaedia (there are editors with other motivations –
> such as vandals, self-promoters, etc) . I would agree that a crowd of
> people working down the street together is not a collaboration, and that
> cooperation or coordination is a better term for it. However, the
> distinction is not clear cut. Generally in life, our goals get broken into
> sub-goals. So, your goal is to provide well for your family, so you decide
> you need a better paying job (sub-goal), so you enrol in a Masters degree
> to upgrade your qualifications to get the better job (sub-sub-goal), etc.
> So back to walking down the street in a crowd. We presume that the goal of
> the people are mostly different, some are heading to the shops, others to
> the train station, others to the office, etc. But this goal has a sub-goal
> of getting safely to the end of the street, which requires us not to trip
> over one another. Are we collaborating with respect to the goal of getting
> safely to the end of the street, but cooperating/coordinating with respect
> of the different goals of going to the shops or the office? There are
> infinite shades of grey in this regard; it depends on where you choose to
> put the goal-posts (pun intended).
>
> ** **
>
> This is where stigmergy (the notion of collaboration without explicit
> communication but with the ability to sense the environment) which makes a
> lot of sense when discussing insects doesn’t translate well to people. This
> is because insects can’t talk and we presume that the pheromone trails etc
> they leave on the environment are involuntary side-effects of their actions
> (e.g finding food), which are then observed from the environment by other
> insects. A human analogy would be leaving our footprints when we walk along
> the sand or leaving fingerprints at a crime scene. Wikipedia is often
> described as stigmergic collaboration because many editors are at work
> without a lot of explicit communication (talk pages, email, IRC) to
> coordinate their activities. So what is the environment through which WP
> stigmergy informs editors in the absence of explicit communication? The
> general presumption is that it is the articles themselves, but I think most
> of us would struggle with the notion that article edits are involuntary
> side-effects; they seem quite deliberate actions by editors (apart perhaps
> for the typos!) with the intention of communicating some information to the
> WP readership. Or to put it the other way, everything about WP is
> deliberate communication, so the insect analogy breaks down. So, any model
> of stigmergic collaboration in humans has to draw a line between what will
> be regarded an explicit communication and what is sensing the environment
> (observing the footprints in the sand). It’s just that the line is hard to
> draw as humans are highly communicative creatures and everything about the
> WWW is communicative. Nonetheless we might argue that recommender systems
> “people who bought this also bought that” on Amazon creates new knowledge
> from observing an environment of purchases and are hence stigmergic.
> Similar arguments apply to “price guides” based on ebay sales data etc. In
> which case we would say that a WP article is stigmergic as it creates new
> body of knowledge from the largely independent contributions of many
> editors and I think many editors do not read talk pages or edit histories
> but simply look at the article and see something missing or wrong and
> decide to fix that.
>
> ** **
>
> So I guess I am moving to the conclusion that while some of the most
> active & dedicated WP editors are engaged in explicit communication in
> order to coordinate various activities (not stigmergic), the long tail of
> editors is behaving stigmergically. 
>
> ** **
>
> Kerry
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
> wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *FT2
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 24 July 2012 4:12 AM
> *To:* jschn

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Access to HTTP access logs for Wikipedia articles?

[Martin Hellberg Olsson]

Felipe: You're mostly right, and I wouldn't expect to know more about  
this than you, but it's not only main. You can do things like:

http://stats.grok.se/en/201003/Wikipedia%3AAbout

So all wiki pages, but probably not page histories and such things.

Also, I believed it was calculated on some kind of "full" data while  
most things that had been discussed here were on things like  
1/100th:s. Looking at the about page again, though, I'm not sure this  
was right.

Still, if Domas doesn't read this list (I have no idea), could it hurt  
to contact him?

Kind regards,
Martin

Citerar "Felipe Ortega" :

>
>
> --- El mar, 13/4/10, Martin Hellberg Olsson  
>  escribió:
>
> De: Martin Hellberg Olsson  Asunto: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Access to HTTP access logs for  
> Wikipedia articles?
> Para: "Research into Wikimedia content and communities"  
> 
> Fecha: martes, 13 de abril, 2010 19:14
>
>
>
>
>
> A reply to the whole discussion, and at least one other recent one,
> rather than this last question.
>
>
>
> This probably doesn't do everything that any of the people asking need,
> but should be relevant. I'm a bit surprised it hasn't been mentioned -
> at least the people involved in these should be able to advise, even if
> the online data isn't usable.
>
>
> Sorry, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that Domas' dumps only  
> contain info about articles (that is, pages in main namespace) and a  
> summary count of hits for each page visited (so you can say which  
> article is the most visited).
>
> We receive raw data for all namespaces of all Wikimedia projects, so  
> you can get more info parsing the URLs (like different actions  
> requested: view, preview, save...).
>
> Best,
> Felipe.
>
>
> Wikipedia article traffic statistics: http://stats.grok.se/
>
> is a "mere visualizer" for the raw data available here:
> http://dammit.lt/wikistats/
>
> as stated in the visualizer's FAQ: http://stats.grok.se/about
>
> " Domas Mituzas put together a system
> to gather access statistics from wikipedia's squid cluster and
> publishes it here. This site
> is a mere visualizer of that data."
>
>
>
> Very happy if this can be of any help!
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> S. Nunes wrote:
>
>   Thanks for the quick feedback.
>
> Can you tell me to whom should this 'direct request' be addressed?
> A 1/100 sample or similar would be great. Is referral data included in
> this sample?
>
> Regards,
> --
> Sérgio Nunes
>
>
> On 13 April 2010 16:09, Felipe Ortega  wrote:
>
>
> Hi Sérgio,
>
> Some universities (like ours) receive a 1/100 sample of the whole  
> set of petitions processed by Wikimedia Squid servers.
>
> It is provided on direct request, however. As far as I know the data  
> is not consistently archived in a public repository anywhere (but I  
> maybe unaware of some system storing that info).
>
> Some work has already been published on this topic:
>
> * A. J. Reinoso, J. M. Gonzalez-Barahona, G. Robles, and F. Ortega,  
> "A quantitative approach to the use of the wikipedia," in 2009 IEEE  
> Symposium on Computers and Communications.    IEEE, July 2009, pp.  
> 56-61. [Online]. Available:  
> http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ISCC.2009.5202401
>
> Regards,
> Felipe.
>
> --- El mar, 13/4/10, S. Nunes  escribió:
>
>
>
>   De: S. Nunes 
> Asunto: [Wiki-research-l] Access to HTTP access logs for Wikipedia articles?
> Para: "Wikipedia Research List" 
> Fecha: martes, 13 de abril, 2010 13:23
> Hi all,
>
> I presume that Wikipedia keeps data about HTTP accesses to
> all articles.
> Can anybody inform me if this data is available for
> research purposes?
>
> I am particularly interested in HTTP referral information
> for each
> article. I suspect that this information could be used to
> estimate
> topical relevance for each document. Access to this
> information poses
> no risk to users' privacy since no user information is made
> available
> - sessions' id, hour/minute timestamp data and IPs could be
> easily
> discarded.
>
> I am new to this list, so I really don't know if this has
> been
> previously discussed.
> I searched the archives and found no relevant results on
> this issue.
>
> Thanks in advance for your feedback,
> --
> Sérgio Nunes
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Access to HTTP access logs for Wikipedia articles?

[Martin Hellberg Olsson]

A reply to the whole discussion, and at least one other recent one, 
rather than this last question.


This probably doesn't do everything that any of the people asking need, 
but should be relevant. I'm a bit surprised it hasn't been mentioned - 
at least the people involved in these should be able to advise, even if 
the online data isn't usable.


Wikipedia article traffic statistics: http://stats.grok.se/
is a "mere visualizer" for the raw data available here: 
http://dammit.lt/wikistats/

as stated in the visualizer's FAQ: http://stats.grok.se/about
" Domas Mituzas  put together a system to gather 
access statistics from wikipedia's squid cluster and publishes it here 
. This site is a mere visualizer of that data."


Very happy if this can be of any help!
Martin

S. Nunes wrote:

Thanks for the quick feedback.

Can you tell me to whom should this 'direct request' be addressed?
A 1/100 sample or similar would be great. Is referral data included in
this sample?

Regards,
--
Sérgio Nunes


On 13 April 2010 16:09, Felipe Ortega  wrote:
  

Hi Sérgio,

Some universities (like ours) receive a 1/100 sample of the whole set of 
petitions processed by Wikimedia Squid servers.

It is provided on direct request, however. As far as I know the data is not 
consistently archived in a public repository anywhere (but I maybe unaware of 
some system storing that info).

Some work has already been published on this topic:

* A. J. Reinoso, J. M. Gonzalez-Barahona, G. Robles, and F. Ortega, "A quantitative 
approach to the use of the wikipedia," in 2009 IEEE Symposium on Computers and 
Communications.IEEE, July 2009, pp. 56-61. [Online]. Available: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ISCC.2009.5202401

Regards,
Felipe.

--- El mar, 13/4/10, S. Nunes  escribió:



De: S. Nunes 
Asunto: [Wiki-research-l] Access to HTTP access logs for Wikipedia articles?
Para: "Wikipedia Research List" 
Fecha: martes, 13 de abril, 2010 13:23
Hi all,

I presume that Wikipedia keeps data about HTTP accesses to
all articles.
Can anybody inform me if this data is available for
research purposes?

I am particularly interested in HTTP referral information
for each
article. I suspect that this information could be used to
estimate
topical relevance for each document. Access to this
information poses
no risk to users' privacy since no user information is made
available
- sessions' id, hour/minute timestamp data and IPs could be
easily
discarded.

I am new to this list, so I really don't know if this has
been
previously discussed.
I searched the archives and found no relevant results on
this issue.

Thanks in advance for your feedback,
--
Sérgio Nunes

___
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