Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia's response to 2012 Aurora shooting
are different to WP, e.g. some are for profit, and not all have such a noble purpose (I like to think I do the world a bigger favour by writing for WP than selling my sofa). Indeed, many would question that there was any purpose or benefit to Facebook :-) Equally WP has revealed problems/issues with mass collaboration over the years, e.g. edit wars, vandalism, nazi administrators, libellous content, controversial topics, multi-lingual, multi-cultural, when to use British vs American spelling, low participation by females and the Global South (I hate that term), quality-vs-quantity, breaking news, etc. But none of these have killed WP; it's found a way to cope well enough with many of them. Clearly these issues aren't unique to WP (e.g. we have strategies for managing many of them in traditional non-WWW contexts), but simply WP has had to deal with them on a more massive and global scale (there's no court-and-prison solution for WP vandalism). There's a lot to learn from WP so long as you look for the bigger patterns and don't fixate on specific solutions. Kerry -Original Message- From: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of James Howison Sent: Wednesday, 25 July 2012 4:14 AM To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia's response to 2012 Aurora shooting I think this is a fascinating discussion :) What's at stake here? What do we gain or loose by calling something collaboration or not doing so? I think part of what's at stake is the ease with which one can generalize. When we say that work in Wikipedia (or Open Source) is collaboration we imply that other work that we understand as collaboration can likely learn from Wikipedia. It's somehow similar enough. If we say (for some reason) that a way of working is not collaboration (or cooperation) then we somehow loose an easy, natural way to make these justifications for research. We have to work a bit harder to make the argument but it helps us be more specific about what might transfer (and what might not). For example, if we accept the idea that some core-ish group are collaborating then if we want to learn from Wikipedia for, say traditional virtual teams in organizations, then we might argue that there is adequate similarity in terms of (say) reciprocal interdependence, helping-behaviors or leadership. Conversely if we accept the idea that the long-tail are working (pseudo)-stigmatically we face a choice: do we just ignore them when we try to learn something transferable, or (more likely) seek to learn something else. Say about how a combination of technology and task-design facilitates such long-tail, stigmergic contributions? Thus learning less about managing teams/teamwork and more about (re)-designing tasks/taskwork. The second approach is what Kevin Crowston and I take in an article about open source that is, we hope (!) coming out soon where we call this separate but collective work collaboration through open superposition (working paper here http://james.howison.name/pubs/CollaborationThroughSuperposition-WorkingPape r.pdf ) I'd be fascinated to hear how much (if any) of the thinking in there people think applies to Wikipedia. Cheers, James ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia's response to 2012 Aurora shooting
On 07/25/2012 10:17 AM, Kerry Raymond wrote: What WP appears to have is more people willing to do the housekeeping, those committed editors who roam around adding geo-locations and infoboxes and categories and standardising the capitalisation of article titles and the recent change patrol and the admins, etc. Don't forget bots and other automated editing tools like Twinkle/Huggle. It is really a composite ecosystem out there. In comparison, in software development, people still do most of the coding by hand -- very few developers would feel comfortable having a script that goes around their code base making changes without any human supervision... -- Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia ✎ Bertastraße 36 ∙ 8003 Zürich ∙ Switzerland ☞ http://www.inf.usi.ch/phd/ciampaglia/ ✆ +41 79 718 8157 ✉ glciamp...@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] Wikipedia's response to 2012 Aurora shooting
and communities *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia's response to 2012 Aurora shooting ** ** Walking down the street suggests different objectives and a sole criterion of other people not impacting my agenda. What about when the common activity is a genuinely common agenda on the same object or structure, such as painting a room, and participants' actions include seeing who's doing what, adjusting your contribution or current activity to try and make it easy for them, when you see them doing things and pass them tools or deal with the matters it's clear they see as problems, in order that their area of focus is progressed and faciliated, and when you can see the pattern they are painting in one area and you stop yours to help theirs, identify what they're aiming for by their painting to date, and you pick up another pot of paint to give them a hand in the places it's clear their intention is to complete, and when you deliberately take time to build on or enhance their initial outline by painting extra decorations within it, and watching to see if they like it or not? Then, I think, it can't be compared to the narrow activity of ensure others don't intrude on my intentions and otherwise complete indifference as occurs when people walk down the street. FT2 On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Jodi Schneider jschnei...@pobox.com wrote: This suggests distinguishing coordination and collaboration. I don't know of firm definitions of these. Walking down the street avoiding bumping into others -- that is definitely coordination. Whether it's collaboration is (to me) less clear. ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- http://martinho.livejournal.com May contain language! ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia's response to 2012 Aurora shooting
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: jschnei...@pobox.com; Research into Wikimedia content and communities Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia's response to 2012 Aurora shooting Walking down the street suggests different objectives and a sole criterion of other people not impacting my agenda. What about when the common activity is a genuinely common agenda on the same object or structure, such as painting a room, and participants' actions include seeing who's doing what, adjusting your contribution or current activity to try and make it easy for them, when you see them doing things and pass them tools or deal with the matters it's clear they see as problems, in order that their area of focus is progressed and faciliated, and when you can see the pattern they are painting in one area and you stop yours to help theirs, identify what they're aiming for by their painting to date, and you pick up another pot of paint to give them a hand in the places it's clear their intention is to complete, and when you deliberately take time to build on or enhance their initial outline by painting extra decorations within it, and watching to see if they like it or not? Then, I think, it can't be compared to the narrow activity of ensure others don't intrude on my intentions and otherwise complete indifference as occurs when people walk down the street. FT2 On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Jodi Schneider jschnei...@pobox.commailto:jschnei...@pobox.com wrote: This suggests distinguishing coordination and collaboration. I don't know of firm definitions of these. Walking down the street avoiding bumping into others -- that is definitely coordination. Whether it's collaboration is (to me) less clear. ___ 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] Wikipedia's response to 2012 Aurora shooting
page. It would be very interesting to know if those who appear to be involved in an edit war saw it as an edit war, and to what extent they thought they were acting collaboratively and by what means was that collaboration fostered (e.g. explicit discussions on talk page, or more implicit, e.g. adopting a consistent style established by other editors). ** ** Kerry ** ** *From:* wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Taha Yasseri *Sent:* Monday, 23 July 2012 3:20 AM *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia's response to 2012 Aurora shooting ** ** I resend my previous message that is not delivered yet. Sorry for potential duplicate receiving . Now, after two days, there are 30 Wikipedia language editions who have covered the event (have an article on it). Here: http://wwm.phy.bme.hu/blog.html, see the dynamics, i.e. number of covering WPs versus time, measured in minutes and counted from the event time (t=0). For those who are familiar with spreading phenomena, the curve comes as no surprise. What is surprising, is the fast reaction of Latvian (3rd place) and rather late reaction of Japanese Wikipedia (the latter is most likely related to time zone effects). As I did this in a very unprofessional way, errors and miscalculations are expected, please notify if find. bests, .taha On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Dario Taraborelli dtarabore...@wikimedia.org wrote: Nice (and timely) work as usual, Brian. I was going to enable AFTv5 on this article but decided to hold off for a number of reason (most importantly the fact that we're slowly ramping up AFTv5 to enwiki and we're mostly focused on scalability at the moment). It'd be interesting to study how enabling reader feedback affects the collaborative dynamics of breaking news articles, especially semi-protected ones on which anonymous contributors don't have a voice. ** ** Dario ** ** ** ** ** ** On Jul 21, 2012, at 5:06 PM, WereSpielChequers wrote: It is currently semiprotected, there were IP edits when it was first created. But according to the logs it was fully protected for a while due to IP vandalism. However the edit history only shows it going to semi protection, but there were some moves which have complicated things ** ** WSC On 21 July 2012 22:46, Taha Yasseri taha.yas...@gmail.com wrote: Ok! the page is protected. Sorry! ** ** On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Taha Yasseri taha.yas...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you Brian, Could you also plot the absolute number of edits, and editors, (instead of the ratio)? Though, since the data is ready I could do it on my own too! Surprisingly I see no IP contribution to the article (or may be only few), not in accord with my expectation for such a topic. cheers, .Taha On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Brian Keegan bkee...@northwestern.edu wrote: My preliminary analysis of (English) Wikipedia's response to the 2012 Aurora shootings. Data is available at the bottom: ** ** http://www.brianckeegan.com/2012/07/2012-aurora-shootings/ ** ** -- Brian C. Keegan Ph.D. Student - Media, Technology, Society School of Communication, Northwestern University Science of Networks in Communities, Laboratory for Collaborative Technology ** ** ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Taha. -- Taha. ___ 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 -- Taha. ___ 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] Wikipedia's response to 2012 Aurora shooting
** ** *From:* wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Taha Yasseri *Sent:* Monday, 23 July 2012 3:20 AM *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia's response to 2012 Aurora shooting ** ** I resend my previous message that is not delivered yet. Sorry for potential duplicate receiving . Now, after two days, there are 30 Wikipedia language editions who have covered the event (have an article on it). Here: http://wwm.phy.bme.hu/blog.html, see the dynamics, i.e. number of covering WPs versus time, measured in minutes and counted from the event time (t=0). For those who are familiar with spreading phenomena, the curve comes as no surprise. What is surprising, is the fast reaction of Latvian (3rd place) and rather late reaction of Japanese Wikipedia (the latter is most likely related to time zone effects). As I did this in a very unprofessional way, errors and miscalculations are expected, please notify if find. bests, .taha On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Dario Taraborelli dtarabore...@wikimedia.org wrote: Nice (and timely) work as usual, Brian. I was going to enable AFTv5 on this article but decided to hold off for a number of reason (most importantly the fact that we're slowly ramping up AFTv5 to enwiki and we're mostly focused on scalability at the moment). It'd be interesting to study how enabling reader feedback affects the collaborative dynamics of breaking news articles, especially semi-protected ones on which anonymous contributors don't have a voice. ** ** Dario ** ** ** ** ** ** On Jul 21, 2012, at 5:06 PM, WereSpielChequers wrote: It is currently semiprotected, there were IP edits when it was first created. But according to the logs it was fully protected for a while due to IP vandalism. However the edit history only shows it going to semi protection, but there were some moves which have complicated things ** ** WSC On 21 July 2012 22:46, Taha Yasseri taha.yas...@gmail.com wrote: Ok! the page is protected. Sorry! ** ** On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Taha Yasseri taha.yas...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you Brian, Could you also plot the absolute number of edits, and editors, (instead of the ratio)? Though, since the data is ready I could do it on my own too! Surprisingly I see no IP contribution to the article (or may be only few), not in accord with my expectation for such a topic. cheers, .Taha On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Brian Keegan bkee...@northwestern.edu wrote: My preliminary analysis of (English) Wikipedia's response to the 2012 Aurora shootings. Data is available at the bottom: ** ** http://www.brianckeegan.com/2012/07/2012-aurora-shootings/ ** ** -- Brian C. Keegan Ph.D. Student - Media, Technology, Society School of Communication, Northwestern University Science of Networks in Communities, Laboratory for Collaborative Technology ** ** ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Taha. -- Taha. ___ 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 -- Taha. ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Brian C. Keegan Ph.D. Student - Media, Technology, Society School of Communication, Northwestern University Science of Networks in Communities, Laboratory for Collaborative Technology ___ 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] Wikipedia's response to 2012 Aurora shooting
might not be intentional. ** ** From a research perspective, doing a survey or interview of some of the editors on their perspective of what was going on might be informative to provide better interpretation of the data. Given the protection/semi-protection of the page means it is probably possible to contact many of them via their user talk page. It would be very interesting to know if those who appear to be involved in an edit war saw it as an edit war, and to what extent they thought they were acting collaboratively and by what means was that collaboration fostered (e.g. explicit discussions on talk page, or more implicit, e.g. adopting a consistent style established by other editors). ** ** Kerry ** ** *From:* wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Taha Yasseri *Sent:* Monday, 23 July 2012 3:20 AM *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia's response to 2012 Aurora shooting ** ** I resend my previous message that is not delivered yet. Sorry for potential duplicate receiving . Now, after two days, there are 30 Wikipedia language editions who have covered the event (have an article on it). Here: http://wwm.phy.bme.hu/blog.html, see the dynamics, i.e. number of covering WPs versus time, measured in minutes and counted from the event time (t=0). For those who are familiar with spreading phenomena, the curve comes as no surprise. What is surprising, is the fast reaction of Latvian (3rd place) and rather late reaction of Japanese Wikipedia (the latter is most likely related to time zone effects). As I did this in a very unprofessional way, errors and miscalculations are expected, please notify if find. bests, .taha On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Dario Taraborelli dtarabore...@wikimedia.org wrote: Nice (and timely) work as usual, Brian. I was going to enable AFTv5 on this article but decided to hold off for a number of reason (most importantly the fact that we're slowly ramping up AFTv5 to enwiki and we're mostly focused on scalability at the moment). It'd be interesting to study how enabling reader feedback affects the collaborative dynamics of breaking news articles, especially semi-protected ones on which anonymous contributors don't have a voice. ** ** Dario ** ** ** ** ** ** On Jul 21, 2012, at 5:06 PM, WereSpielChequers wrote: It is currently semiprotected, there were IP edits when it was first created. But according to the logs it was fully protected for a while due to IP vandalism. However the edit history only shows it going to semi protection, but there were some moves which have complicated things ** ** WSC On 21 July 2012 22:46, Taha Yasseri taha.yas...@gmail.com wrote: Ok! the page is protected. Sorry! ** ** On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Taha Yasseri taha.yas...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you Brian, Could you also plot the absolute number of edits, and editors, (instead of the ratio)? Though, since the data is ready I could do it on my own too! Surprisingly I see no IP contribution to the article (or may be only few), not in accord with my expectation for such a topic. cheers, .Taha On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Brian Keegan bkee...@northwestern.edu wrote: My preliminary analysis of (English) Wikipedia's response to the 2012 Aurora shootings. Data is available at the bottom: ** ** http://www.brianckeegan.com/2012/07/2012-aurora-shootings/ ** ** -- Brian C. Keegan Ph.D. Student - Media, Technology, Society School of Communication, Northwestern University Science of Networks in Communities, Laboratory for Collaborative Technology ** ** ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Taha. -- Taha. ___ 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 -- Taha. ___ 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
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia's response to 2012 Aurora shooting
Walking down the street suggests different objectives and a sole criterion of other people not impacting my agenda. What about when the common activity is a genuinely common agenda on the same object or structure, such as painting a room, and participants' actions include seeing who's doing what, adjusting your contribution or current activity to try and make it easy for them, when you see them doing things and pass them tools or deal with the matters it's clear they see as problems, in order that their area of focus is progressed and faciliated, and when you can see the pattern they are painting in one area and you stop yours to help theirs, identify what they're aiming for by their painting to date, and you pick up another pot of paint to give them a hand in the places it's clear their intention is to complete, and when you deliberately take time to build on or enhance their initial outline by painting extra decorations within it, and watching to see if they like it or not? Then, I think, it can't be compared to the narrow activity of ensure others don't intrude on my intentions and otherwise complete indifference as occurs when people walk down the street. FT2 On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Jodi Schneider jschnei...@pobox.comwrote: This suggests distinguishing coordination and collaboration. I don't know of firm definitions of these. Walking down the street avoiding bumping into others -- that is definitely coordination. Whether it's collaboration is (to me) less clear. ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia's response to 2012 Aurora shooting
I will add coordinating to these other two distinctions I often make. * coordinating -- avoiding interference with independent goals * cooperating -- aligning goals, perhaps through promises or contracts * collaborating -- advancing other's goals, selflessly or based on trust I've noticed that wiki editors can sense the motives of other authors and are often right. I suspect these distinctions are harder to extract from logs by mechanical means. The counts and graphs are still interesting. Best regards. -- Ward On Jul 23, 2012, at 11:11 AM, FT2 wrote: Walking down the street suggests different objectives and a sole criterion of other people not impacting my agenda. What about when the common activity is a genuinely common agenda on the same object or structure, such as painting a room, and participants' actions include seeing who's doing what, adjusting your contribution or current activity to try and make it easy for them, when you see them doing things and pass them tools or deal with the matters it's clear they see as problems, in order that their area of focus is progressed and faciliated, and when you can see the pattern they are painting in one area and you stop yours to help theirs, identify what they're aiming for by their painting to date, and you pick up another pot of paint to give them a hand in the places it's clear their intention is to complete, and when you deliberately take time to build on or enhance their initial outline by painting extra decorations within it, and watching to see if they like it or not? Then, I think, it can't be compared to the narrow activity of ensure others don't intrude on my intentions and otherwise complete indifference as occurs when people walk down the street. FT2 On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Jodi Schneider jschnei...@pobox.com wrote: This suggests distinguishing coordination and collaboration. I don't know of firm definitions of these. Walking down the street avoiding bumping into others -- that is definitely coordination. Whether it's collaboration is (to me) less clear. ___ 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] Wikipedia's response to 2012 Aurora shooting
Nice (and timely) work as usual, Brian. I was going to enable AFTv5 on this article but decided to hold off for a number of reason (most importantly the fact that we're slowly ramping up AFTv5 to enwiki and we're mostly focused on scalability at the moment). It'd be interesting to study how enabling reader feedback affects the collaborative dynamics of breaking news articles, especially semi-protected ones on which anonymous contributors don't have a voice. Dario On Jul 21, 2012, at 5:06 PM, WereSpielChequers wrote: It is currently semiprotected, there were IP edits when it was first created. But according to the logs it was fully protected for a while due to IP vandalism. However the edit history only shows it going to semi protection, but there were some moves which have complicated things WSC On 21 July 2012 22:46, Taha Yasseri taha.yas...@gmail.com wrote: Ok! the page is protected. Sorry! On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Taha Yasseri taha.yas...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you Brian, Could you also plot the absolute number of edits, and editors, (instead of the ratio)? Though, since the data is ready I could do it on my own too! Surprisingly I see no IP contribution to the article (or may be only few), not in accord with my expectation for such a topic. cheers, .Taha On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Brian Keegan bkee...@northwestern.edu wrote: My preliminary analysis of (English) Wikipedia's response to the 2012 Aurora shootings. Data is available at the bottom: http://www.brianckeegan.com/2012/07/2012-aurora-shootings/ -- Brian C. Keegan Ph.D. Student - Media, Technology, Society School of Communication, Northwestern University Science of Networks in Communities, Laboratory for Collaborative Technology ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Taha. -- Taha. ___ 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] Wikipedia's response to 2012 Aurora shooting
I resend my previous message that is not delivered yet. Sorry for potential duplicate receiving . Now, after two days, there are 30 Wikipedia language editions who have covered the event (have an article on it). Here: http://wwm.phy.bme.hu/blog.html, see the dynamics, i.e. number of covering WPs versus time, measured in minutes and counted from the event time (t=0). For those who are familiar with spreading phenomena, the curve comes as no surprise. What is surprising, is the fast reaction of Latvian (3rd place) and rather late reaction of Japanese Wikipedia (the latter is most likely related to time zone effects). As I did this in a very unprofessional way, errors and miscalculations are expected, please notify if find. bests, .taha On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Dario Taraborelli dtarabore...@wikimedia.org wrote: Nice (and timely) work as usual, Brian. I was going to enable AFTv5 on this article but decided to hold off for a number of reason (most importantly the fact that we're slowly ramping up AFTv5 to enwiki and we're mostly focused on scalability at the moment). It'd be interesting to study how enabling reader feedback affects the collaborative dynamics of breaking news articles, especially semi-protected ones on which anonymous contributors don't have a voice. Dario On Jul 21, 2012, at 5:06 PM, WereSpielChequers wrote: It is currently semiprotected, there were IP edits when it was first created. But according to the logs it was fully protected for a while due to IP vandalism. However the edit history only shows it going to semi protection, but there were some moves which have complicated things WSC On 21 July 2012 22:46, Taha Yasseri taha.yas...@gmail.com wrote: Ok! the page is protected. Sorry! On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Taha Yasseri taha.yas...@gmail.comwrote: Thank you Brian, Could you also plot the absolute number of edits, and editors, (instead of the ratio)? Though, since the data is ready I could do it on my own too! Surprisingly I see no IP contribution to the article (or may be only few), not in accord with my expectation for such a topic. cheers, .Taha On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Brian Keegan bkee...@northwestern.eduwrote: My preliminary analysis of (English) Wikipedia's response to the 2012 Aurora shootings. Data is available at the bottom: http://www.brianckeegan.com/2012/07/2012-aurora-shootings/ -- Brian C. Keegan Ph.D. Student - Media, Technology, Society School of Communication, Northwestern University Science of Networks in Communities, Laboratory for Collaborative Technology ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Taha. -- Taha. ___ 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 -- Taha. ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia's response to 2012 Aurora shooting
I think this study of the collaborative dynamics is interesting, but I have some questions. Do we have any evidence that collaboration is actually occurring? With breaking news like this, it may just be many individuals operating independently? Collaboration pretty much requires a communication channel, but internal to WP the only visible communication is the talk page (and perhaps user talk pages). We might infer that editors participating in a consensus-building thread in the talk page (or user talk pages) are acting collaboratively in relation to the issue under discussion (but not necessarily more widely. However, if editors are disagreeing in a talk page thread, it is hard to say whether their edits in relation to that issue are collaborative or warring (deliberating seeking to undo another) or simply independent (using their best judgement at that moment). Nor can we readily judge if editors not writing on the talk page might still be reading it and thus informing their actions based on those discussions - that is, might be acting in silent collaboration. Nor can we tell if any of the editors are having private conversations via email or other means . As communication takes time, in a breaking news situation editors might prefer to just be bold and keep the page as up-to-date as possible, using their own best judgement rather than waste time arguing on the talk page. Can we consider reversions and mutual reversions in a breaking news situation as revealing an edit war? With many editors simultaneously active, I think you have to consider that it is just a stampede that is taking place. It's a bit like walking together. If just two people walk down a street, we can say pretty clearly if they are walking together (they will remain in close alignment most of the time). But if a crowd of people are walking down the street, it's hard to say that two people are walking together - they might just be forced into that alignment by the crowd. I think we have the same situation with reversions with simultaneous editors operating in a breaking news situation; many individuals acting independently and reversions might not be intentional. From a research perspective, doing a survey or interview of some of the editors on their perspective of what was going on might be informative to provide better interpretation of the data. Given the protection/semi-protection of the page means it is probably possible to contact many of them via their user talk page. It would be very interesting to know if those who appear to be involved in an edit war saw it as an edit war, and to what extent they thought they were acting collaboratively and by what means was that collaboration fostered (e.g. explicit discussions on talk page, or more implicit, e.g. adopting a consistent style established by other editors). Kerry From: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Taha Yasseri Sent: Monday, 23 July 2012 3:20 AM To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia's response to 2012 Aurora shooting I resend my previous message that is not delivered yet. Sorry for potential duplicate receiving . Now, after two days, there are 30 Wikipedia language editions who have covered the event (have an article on it). Here: http://wwm.phy.bme.hu/blog.html, see the dynamics, i.e. number of covering WPs versus time, measured in minutes and counted from the event time (t=0). For those who are familiar with spreading phenomena, the curve comes as no surprise. What is surprising, is the fast reaction of Latvian (3rd place) and rather late reaction of Japanese Wikipedia (the latter is most likely related to time zone effects). As I did this in a very unprofessional way, errors and miscalculations are expected, please notify if find. bests, .taha On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Dario Taraborelli dtarabore...@wikimedia.orgmailto:dtarabore...@wikimedia.org wrote: Nice (and timely) work as usual, Brian. I was going to enable AFTv5 on this article but decided to hold off for a number of reason (most importantly the fact that we're slowly ramping up AFTv5 to enwiki and we're mostly focused on scalability at the moment). It'd be interesting to study how enabling reader feedback affects the collaborative dynamics of breaking news articles, especially semi-protected ones on which anonymous contributors don't have a voice. Dario On Jul 21, 2012, at 5:06 PM, WereSpielChequers wrote: It is currently semiprotected, there were IP edits when it was first created. But according to the logs it was fully protected for a while due to IP vandalism. However the edit history only shows it going to semi protection, but there were some moves which have complicated things WSC On 21 July 2012 22:46, Taha Yasseri taha.yas...@gmail.commailto:taha.yas...@gmail.com wrote: Ok! the page is protected
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia's response to 2012 Aurora shooting
references), emulating stylistic precedent/consensus (e.g., fill in the blanks from using previous hurricane articles), or employing specialized practices (e.g., adopting templates for death tolls). I think survey research of any defensible validity is immensely difficult to design and execute, so I avoid it at all costs, but that's my methodological bias :) I'm very happy to have people poke holes in my ideas now so that I can have snappier responses in front of conference audiences and dissertation committees! Best, Brian On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Kerry Raymond k.raym...@qut.edu.au wrote: I think this study of the “collaborative” dynamics is interesting, but I have some questions. ** ** Do we have any evidence that collaboration is actually occurring? With breaking news like this, it may just be many individuals operating independently? Collaboration pretty much requires a communication channel, but internal to WP the only visible communication is the talk page (and perhaps user talk pages). We might infer that editors participating in a consensus-building thread in the talk page (or user talk pages) are acting collaboratively in relation to the issue under discussion (but not necessarily more widely. However, if editors are disagreeing in a talk page thread, it is hard to say whether their edits in relation to that issue are collaborative or “warring” (deliberating seeking to undo another) or simply independent (using their best judgement at that moment). Nor can we readily judge if editors not writing on the talk page might still be reading it and thus informing their actions based on those discussions – that is, might be acting in “silent collaboration”. Nor can we tell if any of the editors are having private conversations via email or other means . As communication takes time, in a breaking news situation editors might prefer to just “be bold” and keep the page as up-to-date as possible, using their own “best judgement” rather than “waste” time arguing on the talk page. ** ** Can we consider reversions and mutual reversions in a “breaking news” situation as revealing an “edit war”? With many editors simultaneously active, I think you have to consider that it is just a stampede that is taking place. It’s a bit like “walking together”. If just two people walk down a street, we can say pretty clearly if they are walking together (they will remain in close alignment most of the time). But if a crowd of people are walking down the street, it’s hard to say that two people are walking together – they might just be forced into that alignment by the crowd. I think we have the same situation with reversions with simultaneous editors operating in a breaking news situation; many individuals acting independently and reversions might not be intentional. ** ** From a research perspective, doing a survey or interview of some of the editors on their perspective of what was going on might be informative to provide better interpretation of the data. Given the protection/semi-protection of the page means it is probably possible to contact many of them via their user talk page. It would be very interesting to know if those who appear to be involved in an edit war saw it as an edit war, and to what extent they thought they were acting collaboratively and by what means was that collaboration fostered (e.g. explicit discussions on talk page, or more implicit, e.g. adopting a consistent style established by other editors). ** ** Kerry ** ** *From:* wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Taha Yasseri *Sent:* Monday, 23 July 2012 3:20 AM *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia's response to 2012 Aurora shooting ** ** I resend my previous message that is not delivered yet. Sorry for potential duplicate receiving . Now, after two days, there are 30 Wikipedia language editions who have covered the event (have an article on it). Here: http://wwm.phy.bme.hu/blog.html, see the dynamics, i.e. number of covering WPs versus time, measured in minutes and counted from the event time (t=0). For those who are familiar with spreading phenomena, the curve comes as no surprise. What is surprising, is the fast reaction of Latvian (3rd place) and rather late reaction of Japanese Wikipedia (the latter is most likely related to time zone effects). As I did this in a very unprofessional way, errors and miscalculations are expected, please notify if find. bests, .taha On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Dario Taraborelli dtarabore...@wikimedia.org wrote: Nice (and timely) work as usual, Brian. I was going to enable AFTv5 on this article but decided to hold off for a number of reason (most importantly the fact that we're slowly ramping up AFTv5 to enwiki and we're mostly focused
[Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia's response to 2012 Aurora shooting
My preliminary analysis of (English) Wikipedia's response to the 2012 Aurora shootings. Data is available at the bottom: http://www.brianckeegan.com/2012/07/2012-aurora-shootings/ -- Brian C. Keegan Ph.D. Student - Media, Technology, Society School of Communication, Northwestern University Science of Networks in Communities, Laboratory for Collaborative Technology ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia's response to 2012 Aurora shooting
Thank you Brian, Could you also plot the absolute number of edits, and editors, (instead of the ratio)? Though, since the data is ready I could do it on my own too! Surprisingly I see no IP contribution to the article (or may be only few), not in accord with my expectation for such a topic. cheers, .Taha On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Brian Keegan bkee...@northwestern.eduwrote: My preliminary analysis of (English) Wikipedia's response to the 2012 Aurora shootings. Data is available at the bottom: http://www.brianckeegan.com/2012/07/2012-aurora-shootings/ -- Brian C. Keegan Ph.D. Student - Media, Technology, Society School of Communication, Northwestern University Science of Networks in Communities, Laboratory for Collaborative Technology ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Taha. ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia's response to 2012 Aurora shooting
Ok! the page is protected. Sorry! On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Taha Yasseri taha.yas...@gmail.comwrote: Thank you Brian, Could you also plot the absolute number of edits, and editors, (instead of the ratio)? Though, since the data is ready I could do it on my own too! Surprisingly I see no IP contribution to the article (or may be only few), not in accord with my expectation for such a topic. cheers, .Taha On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Brian Keegan bkee...@northwestern.eduwrote: My preliminary analysis of (English) Wikipedia's response to the 2012 Aurora shootings. Data is available at the bottom: http://www.brianckeegan.com/2012/07/2012-aurora-shootings/ -- Brian C. Keegan Ph.D. Student - Media, Technology, Society School of Communication, Northwestern University Science of Networks in Communities, Laboratory for Collaborative Technology ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Taha. -- Taha. ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
