Re: [Wiki-research-l] Asperges, ADHD and editors

[RhinosF1 -]

Thanks for summing up developments.

I intend to start working on this over the next few weeks once I’ve managed
to get my head round the unusual situations we’re left in and start sorting
what I need to and can do out!

Thanks,
Samuel

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 05:49, Tilman Bayer  wrote:

> The results of that Amichai-Hamburger et al. study were later questioned,
> see
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2013/March#Grumpiness_due_to_a_%22serious_typographical_error%22
>
> Here is another one that studied Big Five personality traits:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2017/February#%22Relationship_between_personality_and_attitudes_to_Wikipedia%22
> Our reviewer noted a lack of statistical power, however.
>
> This (personal, non-scientific) essay may be worth reading:
> https://guillaumepaumier.com/2015/07/29/autistic-wikipedian/
>
> Lastly (for those reading along here), OP has since created
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Editing_and_Neurotypes , and it
> has been noted that in a Dutch survey, "One in eight editors (13%) say they
> have an autism spectrum disorder" (
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EN_-_Report_survey_editors_Dutch_language_Wikipedia_2018.pdf
>  ).
>
> Regards, HaeB
>
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 10:59 AM Finn Aarup Nielsen  wrote:
>
> > For the reviews that summarized research some time ago:
> >
> > The people's encyclopedia under the gaze of the sages: A systematic
> > review of scholarly research on Wikipedia (page 56
> > https://orbit.dtu.dk/ws/files/52914302/SSRN_id2021326.pdf
> >
> > Wikipedia research and tools: Review and comments (page 23)
> > http://www.imm.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/edoc_download.php/6012/pdf/imm6012.pdf
> >
> > we only found the Amichai-Hamburger et al. study (or at least I only
> > recall finding):
> >
> > Yair Amichai-Hamburger, Naama Lamdan, Rinat Madiel, and Tsahi Hayat.
> > Personality characteristics of wikipedia members. CyberPsychology &
> > Behavior, 11(6):679–681, December 2008.
> >
> > I summarized it with:
> >
> > Application of the Big Five Inventory and Real-Me personality
> > questionnaires to 139 Wikipedia and non-Wikipedia users. The recruitment
> > was based on targeting posting of links. Wikipedians scored lower on
> > agreeableness and higher on openness. Differences in extroversion and
> > conscientiousness depended on the sex of the subject.
> >
> >
> > My guess is that Wikipedians are not disproportionately ADHD, perhaps
> > the reverse.
> >
> >
> > Finn Årup Nielsen
> >
> >
> > On 4/2/20 5:49 PM, RhinosF1 - wrote:
> > > Evening all,
> > >
> > > I hope everyone is doing well given the crazy world we’re living in.
> > >
> > > I was having a conversation with a few users on Discord today and we
> were
> > > wondering whether wikimedia (or users of other similiar sites would be
> > > fine) disproportinately fall into the category of having aspergers,
> ADHD
> > > and other simmilar conditions.
> > >
> > > It would be even better if anyone knew what sort of areas these users
> > were
> > > more likely to work in.
> > >
> > > Following a chat with Issac in #wikimedia-research, I understand there
> > > isn’t much support for this kind of research as users may not want to
> > > reveal this information and there is no clear reason for collecting the
> > > information but if anyone knows of past research or has any
> information,
> > > that would be helpful.
> > >
> > > Stay Safe,
> > > RhinosF1
> > >
> >
> > ___
> > 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
>
-- 
Thanks,
Samuel
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Asperges, ADHD and editors

[RhinosF1 -]

Thanks for your responses!

I’ll probably be here for the office hour at the end of the month.

My thoughts are that it would be interesting research to do but we’d
probably have to target about ~1 000 editors, to get ~100 responses and/or
post on the village pumps of most English and multilingual wikis.

We might need to consider asking about the experience that users in these
groups but I’d also consider asking:

1) Which of the following groups you fit into:
- Neurotypical
- Aspergers / Autism Spectrum Disorder
- ADHD
- Other non-neurotypical disorder

2) Which type of editor you are?
- Content Curator
- Counter Vandalism Network
- Copy-Editor
- Image & File curator
- Technical Contributor

3) What your homewiki is?

4) Which wikis you are most active in?

Feel free to suggest more possible options and questions, especially
wording about experience.

I would also love it if someone can agree to collabarate on it and help get
research pages set up & approved.

I probably would collect Wikimedia Username so we can filter duplicate
responses and not remond people more than once if we send a reminder but
destroy that shortly after it’s complete.

Thanks,
RhinosF1

On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 16:49, RhinosF1 -  wrote:

> Evening all,
>
> I hope everyone is doing well given the crazy world we’re living in.
>
> I was having a conversation with a few users on Discord today and we were
> wondering whether wikimedia (or users of other similiar sites would be
> fine) disproportinately fall into the category of having aspergers, ADHD
> and other simmilar conditions.
>
> It would be even better if anyone knew what sort of areas these users were
> more likely to work in.
>
> Following a chat with Issac in #wikimedia-research, I understand there
> isn’t much support for this kind of research as users may not want to
> reveal this information and there is no clear reason for collecting the
> information but if anyone knows of past research or has any information,
> that would be helpful.
>
> Stay Safe,
> RhinosF1
> --
> Thanks,
> Samuel
>
-- 
Thanks,
Samuel
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Asperges, ADHD and editors

[RhinosF1 -]

Hi,

I think everyone should be very sensitive around personal data, even more
so of this nature.

As long as we can make the need for the data clear to participants and
those involved, it should be acceptable in my opinion and we can probably
learn things about the project dyamics from such research.

It is definately better if we can improve how we understand each other.

Thanks,
RhinosF1

On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 12:14, Delphine Ménard  wrote:

> Thank you for clarifying Jonathan. I am with you when it comes to the
> sensitivity of handling any data of this sort (and any personal data, for
> that matter).
>
> As to the need for this kind of data, I believe that it is actually
> extremely important. I have to say that in 15 years in the movement, I have
> been wondering how we could better learn about the people who participate
> in our projects and how this knowledge would affect the way we interact
> with each other. I think that there are a lot of things we are not doing
> well right now *because* we don't know for sure where people in the
> movement actually even categorize themselves. The same way we
> translate things for people to have them in their own language,
> understanding people's neurological differences or social constraints and
> their prevalence in our communities might be tremendously helpful in order
> to design training for conflict resolution, newcomers integration, staff
> training to work with community members, and even, I imagine, for something
> as important as writing the code of conduct in a way that makes sense for
> *everyone*.
>
> As I am developing my program around onboarding WMF staff around community
> and movement, this is definitely something I want to make sure that we
> don't overlook, because I think that the better we understand each other,
> the easier it is to work together productively.
>
> Best,
>
> Delphine
>
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:35 PM Jonathan Morgan 
> wrote:
>
> > Gerard,
> >
> > To clarify, what grosses me out ("makes me uncomfortable") is the
> prospect
> > of third parties gathering and storing sensitive personal information
> about
> > individual Wikipedia editors without proper oversight mechanisms. Health
> > and medical data is one of the most sensitive kinds of individual data
> that
> > exists. In the United States, as in many other countries, access to this
> > information is heavily regulated--as it should be. Researchers who gather
> > this kind of data should be held to a very high standard of proof that
> they
> > will use the data responsibly, and take specific care to avoid
> information
> > leakage. Ideally, they should be held legally responsible for proper
> > behavior--and that depends heavily on their local jurisdiction and on
> their
> > own truthfulness and transparency--things the rest of us in the movement
> > have little control over. In my opinion, anyone who cares about both
> > science and ethics should always err on the side of avoiding harm
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belmont_Report>--even if that sometimes
> > means refraining from asking research questions that have scientific
> merit
> > or that could yield practical community benefit.
> >
> > To your comment about Clarice Phelps, I'm not aware of this individual
> (or
> > article?) and do not know what you are referring to. But I would caution
> > you not to make public speculative statements about the mental health
> > status of any editor, or make generalizations about the motivations or
> > actions of all people who you believe have particular mental
> > characteristics, based on specific incidents you have witnessed or
> > interactions you have had. If I have misread your statement, I apologize
> > for the error.
> >
> > Best,
> > Jonathan
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 11:29 AM Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > We regularly have problems with people. We have people who are banned
> > > because people think they are problematic. We have banned people who
> have
> > > contributed hugely to our projects. The notion that it is stigmatising
> > is a
> > > notion whereby we wash our hands in innocence, we do not want to know.
> > >
> > > It is one thing that you personally are grossed out but I hope you
> > > understand that given that this is an issue we need to address. It is
> not
> > > only people who do not care for rules, it is also the people who obsess
> > > about rules. You find it in the excessive attention for Clarice Phelps.
>

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Asperges, ADHD and editors

[RhinosF1 -]

I don’t think userboxes are the best thing to use as evidence for any claim

On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 23:38, Nick Wilson (Quiddity) 
wrote:

> See also
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Health/Mental
> and semi-related
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Personality
> plus the essays
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Obsessive%E2%80%93compulsive_disorder_editors
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:High-functioning_autism_and_Asperger%27s_editors
> (plus the French and Chinese Wikipedia's equivalent pages for that second
> essay, which likely have different content)
>
> Sidenote: I worry about those userboxes, for the same reasons mentioned in
> this thread. I wonder if there ought to be a warning at the top of that
> listing-page, reminding editors to be careful... [but userboxes are a
> complicated can of worms, and it's probably been discussed before, so I
> won't wade into it.]
>
> --Quiddity
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
-- 
Thanks,
Samuel
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Asperges, ADHD and editors

[RhinosF1 -]

Hey Jonathon,

I saw that earlier but what the category doesn’t show is what percentage of
editors are and whether that’s disproportiante.

I don’t think we can get that from a category due to the differing ways
people handle their userspace.

Thanks!

On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 21:41, WereSpielChequers 
wrote:

> I can fully understand that Wikipedians might be reluctant to reveal this
> sort of information, especially if they edit under their own name. But some
> do, and there are currently 624 Wikipedians who have put themselves in the
> category
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Wikipedians_with_Asperger_syndrome
> OK that includes quite a few duplicates, but so do the other user
> categories, most of which seem a lot smaller. By contrast there doesn't
> seem to be an ADHD category.
>
> Equally, I can remember several discussions where people have commented on
> the need for things to be done a certain way to accommodate people on that
> spectrum, while it is rare for similar comments to come up about other
> issues - colour blindness and other vision issues occasionally, but after
> the needs of people who use "text to speech", I wouldn't be surprised if
> Aspergers was the second most common I have seen mentioned in the
> community.
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan
>
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 16:49, RhinosF1 -  wrote:
>
> > Evening all,
> >
> > I hope everyone is doing well given the crazy world we’re living in.
> >
> > I was having a conversation with a few users on Discord today and we were
> > wondering whether wikimedia (or users of other similiar sites would be
> > fine) disproportinately fall into the category of having aspergers, ADHD
> > and other simmilar conditions.
> >
> > It would be even better if anyone knew what sort of areas these users
> were
> > more likely to work in.
> >
> > Following a chat with Issac in #wikimedia-research, I understand there
> > isn’t much support for this kind of research as users may not want to
> > reveal this information and there is no clear reason for collecting the
> > information but if anyone knows of past research or has any information,
> > that would be helpful.
> >
> > Stay Safe,
> > RhinosF1
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Samuel
> > ___
> > 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
>
-- 
Thanks,
Samuel
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Asperges, ADHD and editors

[RhinosF1 -]

Hi Lelia,

That provides a lot of insight! I’ll give it a deep look tommorow.

Applies to some areas of the movement but not more content-related ones.

Thanks!

On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 20:02, Leila Zia  wrote:

> Hi RhinosF1,
>
> If you already haven't seen it, you may be interested to check out
> StackOverflow's Annual Developer Survey. Every year, they ask
> developers across the globe a variety of questions including their
> demographics and within that they have a category called developer
> profile. Check out their 2019 results [1]. They specifically collect
> data on mood or emotional disorder, anxiety disorder, concentration
> and/or memory disorder, and autism spectrum disorder:
>
> https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2019#developer-profile-_-disability-status
>
> Best,
> Leila
>
> [1] https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2019
>
> --
> Leila Zia
> Head of Research
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 11:50 AM RhinosF1 -  wrote:
> >
> > Hey,
> >
> > I think the quote “ Wikipedians are not disproportionately ADHD, perhaps
> > the reverse.” is an interesting opinion as the view of many seems to be
> > that Wikimedia Projects require charectersitics common of people in those
> > groups.
> >
> > Gerard, I agree that we can have issues with people.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 19:29, Gerard Meijssen 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > We regularly have problems with people. We have people who are banned
> > > because people think they are problematic. We have banned people who
> have
> > > contributed hugely to our projects. The notion that it is stigmatising
> is a
> > > notion whereby we wash our hands in innocence, we do not want to know.
> > >
> > > It is one thing that you personally are grossed out but I hope you
> > > understand that given that this is an issue we need to address. It is
> not
> > > only people who do not care for rules, it is also the people who obsess
> > > about rules. You find it in the excessive attention for Clarice Phelps.
> > > People do get hurt, people do get traumatised because of this
> inattention.
> > > Thanks,
> > >GerardM
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 17:58, Jonathan Morgan 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > There's this study
> > > > <
> > > >
> > >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_Construction_and_Application_of_Personality_Profile_Based_on_User_Behavior_in_Wikipedia
> > > > >
> > > > but I don't know if it was ever completed (and as you can infer from
> my
> > > > posts on the talkpage, I very much hope it was NOT).
> > > >
> > > > In general, any kind of psychometric profiling of Wikipedia editors
> kind
> > > of
> > > > grosses me out. But as an armchair psychologist myself, as well as a
> > > > non-neurotypical individual, sure I'm happy to hypothesize that
> there are
> > > > many of us in the projects. It takes a certain mindset to find the
> > > process
> > > > of building an encyclopedia using 20-year old software paradigms to
> be
> > > > engaging ;)
> > > >
> > > > - J
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:49 AM RhinosF1 - 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Evening all,
> > > > >
> > > > > I hope everyone is doing well given the crazy world we’re living
> in.
> > > > >
> > > > > I was having a conversation with a few users on Discord today and
> we
> > > were
> > > > > wondering whether wikimedia (or users of other similiar sites
> would be
> > > > > fine) disproportinately fall into the category of having aspergers,
> > > ADHD
> > > > > and other simmilar conditions.
> > > > >
> > > > > It would be even better if anyone knew what sort of areas these
> users
> > > > were
> > > > > more likely to work in.
> > > > >
> > > > > Following a chat with Issac in #wikimedia-research, I understand
> there
> > > > > isn’t much support for this kind of research as users may not want
> to
> > > > > reveal this information and there is no clear reason for
> collecting the
> > > > > information but if anyone knows of past research or has any
> > > information,
> > > > > that would be helpful.
>

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Asperges, ADHD and editors

[RhinosF1 -]

Hey,

I think the quote “ Wikipedians are not disproportionately ADHD, perhaps
the reverse.” is an interesting opinion as the view of many seems to be
that Wikimedia Projects require charectersitics common of people in those
groups.

Gerard, I agree that we can have issues with people.

Thanks!

On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 19:29, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> We regularly have problems with people. We have people who are banned
> because people think they are problematic. We have banned people who have
> contributed hugely to our projects. The notion that it is stigmatising is a
> notion whereby we wash our hands in innocence, we do not want to know.
>
> It is one thing that you personally are grossed out but I hope you
> understand that given that this is an issue we need to address. It is not
> only people who do not care for rules, it is also the people who obsess
> about rules. You find it in the excessive attention for Clarice Phelps.
> People do get hurt, people do get traumatised because of this inattention.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 17:58, Jonathan Morgan 
> wrote:
>
> > There's this study
> > <
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_Construction_and_Application_of_Personality_Profile_Based_on_User_Behavior_in_Wikipedia
> > >
> > but I don't know if it was ever completed (and as you can infer from my
> > posts on the talkpage, I very much hope it was NOT).
> >
> > In general, any kind of psychometric profiling of Wikipedia editors kind
> of
> > grosses me out. But as an armchair psychologist myself, as well as a
> > non-neurotypical individual, sure I'm happy to hypothesize that there are
> > many of us in the projects. It takes a certain mindset to find the
> process
> > of building an encyclopedia using 20-year old software paradigms to be
> > engaging ;)
> >
> > - J
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:49 AM RhinosF1 -  wrote:
> >
> > > Evening all,
> > >
> > > I hope everyone is doing well given the crazy world we’re living in.
> > >
> > > I was having a conversation with a few users on Discord today and we
> were
> > > wondering whether wikimedia (or users of other similiar sites would be
> > > fine) disproportinately fall into the category of having aspergers,
> ADHD
> > > and other simmilar conditions.
> > >
> > > It would be even better if anyone knew what sort of areas these users
> > were
> > > more likely to work in.
> > >
> > > Following a chat with Issac in #wikimedia-research, I understand there
> > > isn’t much support for this kind of research as users may not want to
> > > reveal this information and there is no clear reason for collecting the
> > > information but if anyone knows of past research or has any
> information,
> > > that would be helpful.
> > >
> > > Stay Safe,
> > > RhinosF1
> > > --
> > > Thanks,
> > > Samuel
> > > ___
> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jonathan T. Morgan
> > Senior Design Researcher
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)>
> > (Uses He/Him)
> >
> > *Please note that I do not expect a response from you on evenings or
> > weekends*
> > ___
> > 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
>
-- 
Thanks,
Samuel
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Asperges, ADHD and editors

[RhinosF1 -]

Hi,

I saw that J and I don’t think (luckily) it ever finished.

Your comment about it taking “a certain mindset” is very true and the
reason behind this post.

Joe, If you can help us bring any data to “good use” allowing a “more
emergent understanding” then please feel free to fire out suggestions.

Thanks!


On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 17:11, Joe Corneli  wrote:

> I wonder if rather than trying to sort people into existing categories, it
> would be useful to have a more emergent understanding of Wikimedia and the
> broader open source community.  Obviously we should be careful because it
> could amount to playing with fire (cf. Cambridge Analytica).  *However*
> there may also be ways to use some of related techniques "for good".  With
> my colleagues at The Open University, we joked about "Milton Keynes
> Analytica".  Specifically, we started from the point of view thinking about
> how to model 'values'.  There's some overlap with psychological traits
> (e.g., openness) but I think values particularly lend themselves towards
> uses that support commons-creation rather than private-exploitation.  If
> you think about the anti-patterns that challenge values and value-based
> thinking, they are things like "dogma" (which would tend to shut down
> conversations rather than use them as an opportunity to explore multiple
> points of view).  In this sense it seems within Wikimedia's remit to
> embrace values, especially the values of contributors and users.
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
-- 
Thanks,
Samuel
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] Asperges, ADHD and editors

[RhinosF1 -]

Evening all,

I hope everyone is doing well given the crazy world we’re living in.

I was having a conversation with a few users on Discord today and we were
wondering whether wikimedia (or users of other similiar sites would be
fine) disproportinately fall into the category of having aspergers, ADHD
and other simmilar conditions.

It would be even better if anyone knew what sort of areas these users were
more likely to work in.

Following a chat with Issac in #wikimedia-research, I understand there
isn’t much support for this kind of research as users may not want to
reveal this information and there is no clear reason for collecting the
information but if anyone knows of past research or has any information,
that would be helpful.

Stay Safe,
RhinosF1
-- 
Thanks,
Samuel
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Analytics] [Announcement] Daily Social Media Traffic Report for English Wikipedia articles

[RhinosF1 -]

Great Project! Intresting data!

Stay safe whatever you do,
Samuel

On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 at 19:24, Jonathan Morgan  wrote:

> The WMF Research team has published a new pageview report of inbound
> traffic coming from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Reddit.[1]
>
> The report contains a list of all articles that received at least 500
> views from one or more of these platforms (i.e. someone clicked a link on
> Twitter that sent them directly to a Wikipedia article). The report is
> available on-wiki and will be updated daily at around 14:00 UTC with
> traffic counts from the previous calendar day.
>
> We believe this report provides editors with a valuable new information
> source. Daily inbound social media traffic stats can help editors monitor
> edits to articles that are going viral on social media sites and/or are
> being linked to by the social media platform itself in order to fact-check
> disinformation and other controversial content[2][3].
>
> The social media traffic report also contains additional public article
> metadata that may be useful in the context of monitoring articles that are
> receiving unexpected attention from social media sites, such as...
>
>- the total number of pageviews (from all sources) that article
>received in the same period of time
>- the number of pageviews the article received from the same platform
>(e.g. Facebook) the previous day (two days ago)
>- the number of editors who have the page on their watchlist
>- the number of editors who have watchlisted the page AND recently
>visited it
>
> We want your feedback! We have some ideas of our own for how to improve
> the report, but we want to hear yours! If you have feature suggestions,
> please add them here.[4] We intend to maintain this daily report for at
> least the next two months. If we receive feedback that the report is
> useful, we are considering making it available indefinitely.
>
> If you have other questions about the report, please first check out our
> (still growing) FAQ [5]. All questions, comments, concerns, ideas, etc. are
> welcome on the project talkpage on Meta.[4]
>
> 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HostBot/Social_media_traffic_report
> 2.
> https://www.engadget.com/2018/03/15/wikipedia-unaware-would-be-youtube-fact-checker/
> 3.
> https://mashable.com/2017/10/05/facebook-wikipedia-context-articles-news-feed/
> 4.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Social_media_traffic_report_pilot
> 5.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Social_media_traffic_report_pilot/About
>
> Cheers,
> Jonathan
>
> --
> Jonathan T. Morgan
> Senior Design Researcher
> Wikimedia Foundation
> User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
> (Uses He/Him)
>
> *Please note that I do not expect a response from you on evenings or
> weekends*
> ___
> Analytics mailing list
> analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>
-- 
Thanks,
Samuel
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Analytics] Active meta users v active wikimedia users

[RhinosF1 -]

Hi,

I’ve just seen the replies and thanks to everyone whose replied.

I was looking to try and work out what percent lf the active wikimedia
community are participating on meta and comparing to another wiki farm. Any
thoughts on that?

RhinosF1

On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 20:31, Aaron Halfaker 
wrote:

> It doesn't look like Active Editors works for all wikis.  I think you'd
> have to merge activity across all wikis to get a stat like that. I'm not
> sure I know of a good data strategy to get that.
>
> If you were to query it with quarry, you'd need to write a query for every
> wiki and then write some code to merge the results.  Oof.
>
> If you to extract it from the XML dumps, you'd need to process each Wiki
> separately and then merge the results.  Oof.
>
> The best solution to this is to have a common table/relation across all
> Wikis and to aggregate from there.  I don't think there's any such
> cross-wiki table/relation available.
>
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 1:38 PM Jonathan Morgan 
> wrote:
>
> > Same dashboard, but for "All wikis":
> > https://stats.wikimedia.org/v2/#/all-projects
> >
> > That work?
> >
> > - J
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 11:32 AM RhinosF1 -  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > That provides active users for meta but not globally. Anything for
> > global?
> > >
> > > RhinosF1
> > >
> > > On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 18:10, Jonathan Morgan 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > RhinosF1,
> > > >
> > > > Are you looking for information like this
> > > > <https://stats.wikimedia.org/v2/#/meta.wikimedia.org>, or something
> > > > different?
> > > >
> > > > - J
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 8:51 AM RhinosF1 - 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Does anyone know a way to find out how many  wikimedia users are
> > active
> > > > > globally compared to active on metawiki?
> > > > >
> > > > > This mean they've made more than 5 edits in the last 30 days for
> > this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > RhinosF1
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Analytics mailing list
> > > > > analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jonathan T. Morgan
> > > > Senior Design Researcher
> > > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > > User:Jmorgan (WMF) <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)
> > >
> > > > (Uses He/Him)
> > > > ___
> > > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jonathan T. Morgan
> > Senior Design Researcher
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)>
> > (Uses He/Him)
> > ___
> > 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] [Analytics] Active meta users v active wikimedia users

[RhinosF1 -]

Hi,

That provides active users for meta but not globally. Anything for global?

RhinosF1

On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 18:10, Jonathan Morgan  wrote:

> RhinosF1,
>
> Are you looking for information like this
> <https://stats.wikimedia.org/v2/#/meta.wikimedia.org>, or something
> different?
>
> - J
>
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 8:51 AM RhinosF1 -  wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Does anyone know a way to find out how many  wikimedia users are active
> > globally compared to active on metawiki?
> >
> > This mean they've made more than 5 edits in the last 30 days for this.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > RhinosF1
> > ___
> > Analytics mailing list
> > analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
> >
>
>
> --
> Jonathan T. Morgan
> Senior Design Researcher
> Wikimedia Foundation
> User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)>
> (Uses He/Him)
> ___
> 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] Active meta users v active wikimedia users

[RhinosF1 -]

Hi,

Does anyone know a way to find out how many  wikimedia users are active
globally compared to active on metawiki?

This mean they've made more than 5 edits in the last 30 days for this.

Thanks,
RhinosF1
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] sockpuppets and how to find them sooner

[RhinosF1]

Just a note that you can still go through warnings for vandalism etc. and
report to AIV.

Or at that edit speed, you may have a chance at AN at reporting for
bot-like edits which will draw attention to the account.

If you ever need help, things like #wikipedia-en-help on Freenode IRC exist
so you can ask other users.

RhinosF1
Miraheze Volunteer

On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 06:57, Kerry Raymond  wrote:

> Currently, to open a sockpuppet investigation, you must name the two (or
> more) accounts that you believe to be sockpuppets with "clear, behavioural
> evidence of sock puppetry" which is typically in the form of pairs of edits
> that demonstrate similar edit behaviours that are unlikely to naturally
> occur. Now if you spend enough time on-wiki, you develop an intuition about
> behaviours you see on your watchlist and in article edit histories. Often I
> am highly suspicious that an account is a sockpuppet, but I cannot report
> them because I don't know which other account is involved.
>
>
>
> As a example, I recently encounted User:Shelati an account about 1 day old
> at that time with nearly 100 edits in that day all about 1-2 minutes apart,
> mostly making a similar change to a large number of Australian place
> infoboxes.
>
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Shelati
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Shelati&of
> fset=20190728053057&limit=100&target=Shelati
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Shelati&offset=20190728053057&limit=100&target=Shelati>
> >
> &offset=20190728053057&limit=100&target=Shelati
>
>
>
> Genuine new users do not edit that quickly, do not use templates and do not
> mess structurally with infoboxes (at most they try to change the values).
> It
> "smelled" like a sockpuppet. However, as I did not recognise that pattern
> of
> edit behaviour as being that of any other user I was familiar with, it
> wasn't something I could report for sockpuppet investigation. Anyhow after
> about 2 weeks, the user was blocked as a sockpuppet. Someone must have
> noticed and figured out the other account:
>
>
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Meganesia/
> Archive
>
>
>
> Two weeks and 1,279 edits later . that's over 1000 possibly problematic
> edits after I first suspected them. But that's nothing compared with
> another
> ongoing situation in which a very large number of different IPs are engaged
> in a pattern of problem edits on mostly Australian articles (a few
> different
> types of edits but an obvious "quack like a duck" situation). The IP number
> changes frequently (and one assumes deliberately). The edits potentially go
> back to 2013 but appear to have intensified in 2018/2019. Here's one user's
> summary of all the IP addresses involved, and the extent to which they have
> been cleaned up, given many thousands of edits are involved, see:
>
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:IamNotU/History_cleanup
>
>
>
> As well as the damage done to the content (which harms the readers), these
> IP sockpuppets are consuming enormous amounts of effort to track them down
> and revert them, which could be more productively used to improve the
> content. We need better tools to foil these pests. So I want to put that
> challenge out to this list.
>
>
>
> Kerry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
-- 
RhinosF1
Miraheze Volunteer
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Input requested] Data Lake Edit release input request

[RhinosF1]

Hello,

I've just tried to use the form and got resource unavailable.

RhinosF1
Volunteer
Miraheze

On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 22:07, Leila Zia  wrote:

> In a nutshell:
> We are asking for your input to help us learn how to release the
> historical edit data of Wikimedia projects in a more efficient way.
> Please provide your feedback via
>
> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScc15eSeFrVvAh_ydpX_1p0v6-WSx2qe3EcBHxIdshSd6omow/viewform
> by 2019-09-03.
>
> **
> Dear researchers,
>
> The Analytics team at Wikimedia Foundation [1] has been working on
> building a data lake [2] for Wikimedia edits [3] to enable the
> research and analysis of Wikimedia's edit data in a more efficient
> way. This data is a history of activity on Wikimedia projects as
> complete and research-friendly as possible. Edits have context, such
> as whether they were reverted, in the same line as the edit itself. So
> you can focus more on what you want to find out instead of writing
> code to wrestle the data. Each line of the data released will include
> the following and more (see full specification [3a], [3b], [3c]):
> * editor edit count, groups, blocks, bot status, name, current and
> historical (time of edit)
> * seconds since this editor's last edit
> * page context, current and historical (namespace, seconds since last
> revision, etc.)
> * seconds to identity revert or deletion, if applicable
> * revision tags (mobile edit, ve edit, etc.)
>
> The first instance of this data will be released in the coming months
> and to make this release as useful as possible for you all, the users
> of the data, the team needs to hear your thoughts on how to slice and
> dice the data at publishing time. You can provide your input at
>
> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScc15eSeFrVvAh_ydpX_1p0v6-WSx2qe3EcBHxIdshSd6omow/viewform
> .
>
> Please provide your input to this survey no later than 2019-09-03.
>
> Best,
> Leila
>
> [1] https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Analytics
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_lake
> [3] https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Analytics/Data_Lake/Edits
> a)
> https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Analytics/Data_Lake/Edits/Mediawiki_history
> b)
> https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Analytics/Data_Lake/Edits/Mediawiki_user_history
> c)
> https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Analytics/Data_Lake/Edits/Mediawiki_page_history
>
>
> --
> Leila Zia
> Principal Research Scientist, Head of Research
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> ___
> 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] [Analytics] [Wikimedia Research Showcase] June 26, 2019 at 11:30 AM PST, 19:30 UTC

[RhinosF1 Wikipedia]

Thanks Jonathan

On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 16:07, Jonathan Morgan  wrote:

> RhinosF1,
>
> All talks are recorded and archived on YouTube, so the link below should
> still work. Let me know if there's a problem with the archiving and I'll
> see what I can do. I'm also working on getting all slides linked to from
> the Showcase page on me.org, whenever possible!
>
> It was a great series of talks this week. Hope you enjoy it! -J
>
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019, 19:04 RhinosF1 Wikipedia  wrote:
>
> > For those that couldn't make it, Is there are summary of what was said?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > RhinosF1
> >
> > On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 at 18:58, Janna Layton 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello everyone,
> >>
> >> Just a reminder that this event will be happening in about half an hour!
> >> Here's the Youtube link again:
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiUfpmeJG7E
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:14 AM Janna Layton 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Time correction:
> >>>
> >>> The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed next Wednesday, June
> >>> 26, at *11:30 AM PDT/18:30 UTC*.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:11 PM Janna Layton 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>> The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday, June
> >>>> 26, at 11:30 AM PST/19:30 UTC. We will have three presentations this
> >>>> showcase, all relating to Wikipedia blocks.
> >>>>
> >>>> YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiUfpmeJG7E
> >>>>
> >>>> As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research.
> >>>> You can also watch our past research showcases here:
> >>>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase
> >>>>
> >>>> This month's presentations:
> >>>>
> >>>> Trajectories of Blocked Community Members: Redemption, Recidivism and
> >>>> Departure
> >>>>
> >>>> By Jonathan Chang, Cornell University
> >>>>
> >>>> Community norm violations can impair constructive communication and
> >>>> collaboration online. As a defense mechanism, community moderators
> often
> >>>> address such transgressions by temporarily blocking the perpetrator.
> Such
> >>>> actions, however, come with the cost of potentially alienating
> community
> >>>> members. Given this tradeoff, it is essential to understand to what
> extent,
> >>>> and in which situations, this common moderation practice is effective
> in
> >>>> reinforcing community rules. In this work, we introduce a
> computational
> >>>> framework for studying the future behavior of blocked users on
> Wikipedia.
> >>>> After their block expires, they can take several distinct paths: they
> can
> >>>> reform and adhere to the rules, but they can also recidivate, or
> >>>> straight-out abandon the community. We reveal that these trajectories
> are
> >>>> tied to factors rooted both in the characteristics of the blocked
> >>>> individual and in whether they perceived the block to be fair and
> >>>> justified. Based on these insights, we formulate a series of
> prediction
> >>>> tasks aiming to determine which of these paths a user is likely to
> take
> >>>> after being blocked for their first offense, and demonstrate the
> >>>> feasibility of these new tasks. Overall, this work builds towards a
> more
> >>>> nuanced approach to moderation by highlighting the tradeoffs that are
> in
> >>>> play.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Automatic Detection of Online Abuse in Wikipedia
> >>>>
> >>>> By Lane Rasberry, University of Virginia
> >>>>
> >>>> Researchers analyzed all English Wikipedia blocks prior to 2018 using
> >>>> machine learning. With insights gained, the researchers examined all
> >>>> English Wikipedia users who are not blocked against the identified
> >>>> characteristics of blocked users. The results were a ranked set of
> >>>> predictions of users who are not blocked, but who have a history of
> conduct
> >>>> similar to that of blocked users. This research and process models a
> syst

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Analytics] [Wikimedia Research Showcase] June 26, 2019 at 11:30 AM PST, 19:30 UTC

[RhinosF1 Wikipedia]

For those that couldn't make it, Is there are summary of what was said?

Thanks in advance,
RhinosF1

On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 at 18:58, Janna Layton  wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> Just a reminder that this event will be happening in about half an hour!
> Here's the Youtube link again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiUfpmeJG7E
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:14 AM Janna Layton 
> wrote:
>
>> Time correction:
>>
>> The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed next Wednesday, June 26,
>> at *11:30 AM PDT/18:30 UTC*.
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:11 PM Janna Layton 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday, June
>>> 26, at 11:30 AM PST/19:30 UTC. We will have three presentations this
>>> showcase, all relating to Wikipedia blocks.
>>>
>>> YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiUfpmeJG7E
>>>
>>> As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research.
>>> You can also watch our past research showcases here:
>>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase
>>>
>>> This month's presentations:
>>>
>>> Trajectories of Blocked Community Members: Redemption, Recidivism and
>>> Departure
>>>
>>> By Jonathan Chang, Cornell University
>>>
>>> Community norm violations can impair constructive communication and
>>> collaboration online. As a defense mechanism, community moderators often
>>> address such transgressions by temporarily blocking the perpetrator. Such
>>> actions, however, come with the cost of potentially alienating community
>>> members. Given this tradeoff, it is essential to understand to what extent,
>>> and in which situations, this common moderation practice is effective in
>>> reinforcing community rules. In this work, we introduce a computational
>>> framework for studying the future behavior of blocked users on Wikipedia.
>>> After their block expires, they can take several distinct paths: they can
>>> reform and adhere to the rules, but they can also recidivate, or
>>> straight-out abandon the community. We reveal that these trajectories are
>>> tied to factors rooted both in the characteristics of the blocked
>>> individual and in whether they perceived the block to be fair and
>>> justified. Based on these insights, we formulate a series of prediction
>>> tasks aiming to determine which of these paths a user is likely to take
>>> after being blocked for their first offense, and demonstrate the
>>> feasibility of these new tasks. Overall, this work builds towards a more
>>> nuanced approach to moderation by highlighting the tradeoffs that are in
>>> play.
>>>
>>>
>>> Automatic Detection of Online Abuse in Wikipedia
>>>
>>> By Lane Rasberry, University of Virginia
>>>
>>> Researchers analyzed all English Wikipedia blocks prior to 2018 using
>>> machine learning. With insights gained, the researchers examined all
>>> English Wikipedia users who are not blocked against the identified
>>> characteristics of blocked users. The results were a ranked set of
>>> predictions of users who are not blocked, but who have a history of conduct
>>> similar to that of blocked users. This research and process models a system
>>> for the use of computing to aid human moderators in identifying conduct on
>>> English Wikipedia which merits a block.
>>>
>>> Project page:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/University_of_Virginia/Automatic_Detection_of_Online_Abuse
>>>
>>> Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIhdb4-hKBo
>>>
>>>
>>> First Insights from Partial Blocks in Wikimedia Wikis
>>>
>>> By Morten Warncke-Wang, Wikimedia Foundation
>>>
>>> The Anti-Harassment Tools team at the Wikimedia Foundation released the
>>> partial block feature in early 2019. Where previously blocks on Wikimedia
>>> wikis were sitewide (users were blocked from editing an entire wiki),
>>> partial blocks makes it possible to block users from editing specific pages
>>> and/or namespaces. The Italian Wikipedia was the first wiki to start using
>>> this feature, and it has since been rolled out to other wikis as well. In
>>> this presentation, we will look at how this feature has been used in the
>>> first few months since release.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Janna Layton (she, her)
>>> Administrative Assistant - Audiences & Technology
>>> Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Janna Layton (she, her)
>> Administrative Assistant - Audiences & Technology
>> Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
>>
>
>
> --
> Janna Layton (she, her)
> Administrative Assistant - Audiences & Technology
> Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
> ___
> Analytics mailing list
> analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] xml dumps of Czech wikis?

[RhinosF1 Wikipedia]

https://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/static_html_dumps/current/cs/


On Fri, 17 May 2019 at 17:05, ABEL SERRANO JUSTE  wrote:

> Hi!
>
> I'm here at the wikimedia hackathon happening in Prague and I was looking
> for the XML dumps of the Czech wikimedia wikis, for instance the Czech
> wikipedia, but I can't see any at
> https://dumps.wikimedia.org/backup-index.html. Where could I get them?
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> *Abel Serrano Juste.*
> ___
> 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] Content similarity between two Wikipedia articles

[RhinosF1 Wikipedia]

The comparison tool on
https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ can look for repeated phrases.

You might be able to tweak that a bit.

On Sat, 4 May 2019 at 12:48, Haifeng Zhang  wrote:

> Dear folks,
>
> Is there a way to compute content similarity between two Wikipedia
> articles?
>
> For example, I can think of representing each article as a vector of
> likelihoods over possible topics.
>
> But, I wonder there are other work people have already explored in the
> past.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Haifeng
> ___
> 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] [Analytics] Analysis into active user stats

[RhinosF1 Wikipedia]

I've added some more comments to the data analysis section

On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 17:31, RhinosF1 Wikipedia  wrote:

> I can provide a better summary. I've only left the short comments at the
> bottom.
>
> Unfortunately, something has come up but I'll try tonight.
>
> On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 16:02, Aaron Halfaker 
> wrote:
>
>> RhinosF1, could you provide an executive summary of your study's findings?
>> As a bigger ask, I'd like to see something that looks more like a research
>> report with an Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, and
>> Discussion/Conclusion.
>>
>> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 6:16 AM RhinosF1 Wikipedia 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > The page on English Wikipedia is up to date with them now
>> >
>> > On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 at 22:51, Stuart A. Yeates 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > I "have attached a .pdf of the results to this email."
>> > >
>> > > This appears not to have come through.
>> > >
>> > > cheers
>> > > stuart
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 08:50, RhinosF1 Wikipedia 
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Hi all,
>> > > > As you maybe aware, Over the last 3 weeks, I've been looking into
>> the
>> > > > accuracy of active user statistics on English Wikipedia.
>> > > >
>> > > > I haven't had a chance to upload the final results to
>> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RhinosF1/activeuser but I have
>> > > completed
>> > > > the gathering of statistics and have attached a .pdf of the results
>> to
>> > > this
>> > > > email.
>> > > >
>> > > > I've found it interesting how there is a sudden drop in the number
>> of
>> > > > active users although I half expected this and intended to find it
>> > > although
>> > > > I want to look deeper.
>> > > >
>> > > > I'd like too see whether this is down to blocks or just not
>> continuing
>> > > and
>> > > > asses whether time requirements or edit requirements have bigger
>> > impact.
>> > > >
>> > > > I look forward to any feedback and help in the research.
>> > > >
>> > > > The plan for the next stages are as follows:
>> > > > 1. About 10-14 days for people getting this email to respond.
>> > > > 2. Run the new list of queries for about 2-3 week to gather some
>> data
>> > to
>> > > > show
>> > > > 3.  Show the data to enwiki users and ask for feedback / help
>> > collecting
>> > > > data
>> > > > 4. Present results in 2-3 months time.
>> > > > 5. Gather wide feedback on results
>> > > > 6. Maybe take action to improve it if we can see what action needs
>> > doing
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > As you will see most of the data is from around 9pm UTC so in future
>> > > stages
>> > > > I would appreciate data collection from a larger range of times.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks in advance,
>> > > > RhinosF1
>> > > > ___
>> > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> > > > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>> > >
>> > > ___
>> > > Analytics mailing list
>> > > analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>> > >
>> > ___
>> > 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] [Analytics] Analysis into active user stats

[RhinosF1 Wikipedia]

I can provide a better summary. I've only left the short comments at the
bottom.

Unfortunately, something has come up but I'll try tonight.

On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 16:02, Aaron Halfaker 
wrote:

> RhinosF1, could you provide an executive summary of your study's findings?
> As a bigger ask, I'd like to see something that looks more like a research
> report with an Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, and
> Discussion/Conclusion.
>
> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 6:16 AM RhinosF1 Wikipedia 
> wrote:
>
> > The page on English Wikipedia is up to date with them now
> >
> > On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 at 22:51, Stuart A. Yeates 
> wrote:
> >
> > > > I "have attached a .pdf of the results to this email."
> > >
> > > This appears not to have come through.
> > >
> > > cheers
> > > stuart
> > >
> > > --
> > > ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
> > >
> > > On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 08:50, RhinosF1 Wikipedia 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > > As you maybe aware, Over the last 3 weeks, I've been looking into the
> > > > accuracy of active user statistics on English Wikipedia.
> > > >
> > > > I haven't had a chance to upload the final results to
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RhinosF1/activeuser but I have
> > > completed
> > > > the gathering of statistics and have attached a .pdf of the results
> to
> > > this
> > > > email.
> > > >
> > > > I've found it interesting how there is a sudden drop in the number of
> > > > active users although I half expected this and intended to find it
> > > although
> > > > I want to look deeper.
> > > >
> > > > I'd like too see whether this is down to blocks or just not
> continuing
> > > and
> > > > asses whether time requirements or edit requirements have bigger
> > impact.
> > > >
> > > > I look forward to any feedback and help in the research.
> > > >
> > > > The plan for the next stages are as follows:
> > > > 1. About 10-14 days for people getting this email to respond.
> > > > 2. Run the new list of queries for about 2-3 week to gather some data
> > to
> > > > show
> > > > 3.  Show the data to enwiki users and ask for feedback / help
> > collecting
> > > > data
> > > > 4. Present results in 2-3 months time.
> > > > 5. Gather wide feedback on results
> > > > 6. Maybe take action to improve it if we can see what action needs
> > doing
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As you will see most of the data is from around 9pm UTC so in future
> > > stages
> > > > I would appreciate data collection from a larger range of times.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance,
> > > > RhinosF1
> > > > ___
> > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Analytics mailing list
> > > analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
> > >
> > ___
> > 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] [Analytics] Analysis into active user stats

[RhinosF1 Wikipedia]

The page on English Wikipedia is up to date with them now

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 at 22:51, Stuart A. Yeates  wrote:

> > I "have attached a .pdf of the results to this email."
>
> This appears not to have come through.
>
> cheers
> stuart
>
> --
> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
>
> On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 08:50, RhinosF1 Wikipedia 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> > As you maybe aware, Over the last 3 weeks, I've been looking into the
> > accuracy of active user statistics on English Wikipedia.
> >
> > I haven't had a chance to upload the final results to
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RhinosF1/activeuser but I have
> completed
> > the gathering of statistics and have attached a .pdf of the results to
> this
> > email.
> >
> > I've found it interesting how there is a sudden drop in the number of
> > active users although I half expected this and intended to find it
> although
> > I want to look deeper.
> >
> > I'd like too see whether this is down to blocks or just not continuing
> and
> > asses whether time requirements or edit requirements have bigger impact.
> >
> > I look forward to any feedback and help in the research.
> >
> > The plan for the next stages are as follows:
> > 1. About 10-14 days for people getting this email to respond.
> > 2. Run the new list of queries for about 2-3 week to gather some data to
> > show
> > 3.  Show the data to enwiki users and ask for feedback / help collecting
> > data
> > 4. Present results in 2-3 months time.
> > 5. Gather wide feedback on results
> > 6. Maybe take action to improve it if we can see what action needs doing
> >
> >
> > As you will see most of the data is from around 9pm UTC so in future
> stages
> > I would appreciate data collection from a larger range of times.
> >
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > RhinosF1
> > ___
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
> ___
> Analytics mailing list
> analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] Analysis into active user stats

[RhinosF1 Wikipedia]

Hi all,
As you maybe aware, Over the last 3 weeks, I've been looking into the
accuracy of active user statistics on English Wikipedia.

I haven't had a chance to upload the final results to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RhinosF1/activeuser but I have completed
the gathering of statistics and have attached a .pdf of the results to this
email.

I've found it interesting how there is a sudden drop in the number of
active users although I half expected this and intended to find it although
I want to look deeper.

I'd like too see whether this is down to blocks or just not continuing and
asses whether time requirements or edit requirements have bigger impact.

I look forward to any feedback and help in the research.

The plan for the next stages are as follows:
1. About 10-14 days for people getting this email to respond.
2. Run the new list of queries for about 2-3 week to gather some data to
show
3.  Show the data to enwiki users and ask for feedback / help collecting
data
4. Present results in 2-3 months time.
5. Gather wide feedback on results
6. Maybe take action to improve it if we can see what action needs doing


As you will see most of the data is from around 9pm UTC so in future stages
I would appreciate data collection from a larger range of times.


Thanks in advance,
RhinosF1
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l