> > Priedhorsky's method counts translations and plagiarism as a valuable > content.
Only if that translation and plagiarism sticks in the article without being edited or removed. Honestly, my main concern with Priedhorsky's method is that it measures *actualized* value -- not value-added. So, if you were to make a contribution 5 years ago rather than today, you're contribution would have *actualized* a ton of value in that 5 years that it couldn't have actualized today. This is a problematic property of the measurement strategy when trying to answer questions like "who adds value to Wikipedia" as opposed to "who added the value that readers got out of Wikipedia"? With some basic simplifications to the way that Priedhorsky looked at page views and /importance/ generally, I think we can adjust the strategy and maintain the benefits. This is something I'm working on right now. :) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Measuring_value-added Collaborators welcome! -Aaron On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Krzysztof Gajewski < krzysztofgajew...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi folks, > > thank you so much for your messages and a very interesting discussion. > Special thanks to Finn for all the hints. > > In my opinion results acquired by Priedhorsky's team don't falsify > Swartz's hypothesis at all. Cases analyzed by Swartz showed that even > when a user contributed with a large amount of text, it could be a > translation or a paste-and-copy of a text found somewhere in the > Internet. Swartz remarks that this kind of content was typical for > active users --- editcountitis, as Kerry wrote. This phenomenon makes > impossible, or very difficult, to measure a valuable user contribution > with a software. If you want to exclude translation or plagiarism, we > must engage a human, or try to created quite sophisticated algorithm. > As far as I remember Priedhorsky's method counts translations and > plagiarism as a valuable content. > > Best, > Krzysztof > > PS. BTW anybody measured how much of Wikipedia text was > copied-and-pasted from another sites, i. e. plagiarized? > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:57 AM, WereSpielChequers > <werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Kerry, > > > > Though the vast majority of my edits are precisely the sort of minor > > housekeeping edits that you describe, I agree with almost all that you > say. > > But would make three little observations. > > > > 1 the solution to the edit conflict problem is to fix the software so we > > have fewer edit conflicts. It wouldn't be a big change to have the > software > > treat categories and project tags as their own sections and not reject > > newbies edits as conflicts with the taggers and the categorisers. When > you > > are training newbies you can minimise these problems by getting them to > > start articles in sandboxes and to create sections. But the solution is > to > > get a high priority for various low priority and won't fix bugs on > > phabricator that would reduce edit conflicts. For the research community > the > > big opportunity is to do research on edit conflicts, if the research > showed > > that they are as I believe the biggest biter of good faith newbies then > > there is a good chance that some programming resource could be allocated > to > > them. If the research showed that they are not significant and that > projects > > like AFT, Visual Editor, liquid threads, flow and the media wiki viewer > > really were a better investment for the WMF than reducing edit conflicts, > > then I will be astonished, and the WMF somewhat vindicated. > > > > 2 don't take the "editors have been in decline since 2006/7" too > seriously. > > These are raw figures on edits, they don't take account of the edit > filters > > which during that era lost us most of our vandalism and with it the > vandal > > reversion, vandal warnings, aiv reports and block messages that were > > generated in response. Nor do they allow for the migration to wikidata of > > things like intrawiki links. The truth is I'm pretty sure no-one has > > meaningful figures for community size in that era. > > > > 3 project tagging even for currently dormant projects shouldn't cause > edit > > conflicts on articles as the tags go on talk pages. Whether project > tagging > > has use or not depends on your attitude about the health of the > community. > > If we are experiencing uniform and irreversible decline with a dwindling > > band of editors who aren't changing their editing interests and no new > > recruits then I could see the argument that once a wiki project has > become > > moribund it won't revive. If however we are broadly stable but with a > steady > > in flow of new editors, then I would see dormant wiki projects as an > > opportunity for newish editors to take on a role within the community. > > Again, somebody could earn a doctorate studying this. > > > > Regards > > > > Jonathan > > > > > > On 23 Jun 2015, at 22:44, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raym...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Given what we that active editors have been declining since about 2006, I > > have to wonder if a 2015 study would produce very different results from > the > > earlier period. > > > > > > > > From an entirely anecdotal perspective, I do observe that there is a lot > of > > “housekeeping” edits that go on. I create a lot of new articles and would > > characterise my own editing as writing a lot of new content in new and > > existing articles; this is my primary interest. However, I am both amused > > and annoyed at the way that within moments of my edit, there can be a > rash > > of people wanting to add project tags, add esoteric categories that I > cannot > > imagine being used for navigation by real readers, replace a dash of one > > length with a dash of another length, remove the word “comprised” (one of > > the most annoying!), and so on. Many of these folks have massive edit > counts > > and appear (from a quick look at the last screen of recent > contributions) to > > devote themselves entirely to this kind of editing. Indeed, I go so far > as > > to say many suffer from editcountitis, a condition that often can be > > diagnosed by the User page being largely devoted to reporting on their > > number of edits J > > > > > > > > IMHO, I would have to say that the value-add of these housekeeping edits > is > > mixed. Some are genuinely useful (people pick up mistakes I’ve made) or > add > > categories I am unaware of that are relevant to the topic. Some are > useful > > if you happen to believe the reader experience is genuinely improved by > > rigid adherence the Manual of Style (I would be interested in a study on > how > > important the consistency of the use of various-length dashes and other > MoS > > detail is to the reader experience). Some like project tagging appear to > be > > utterly pointless as most of the projects involved are moribund. Other > than > > meeting some deep need to “mark your territory” like a dog (or get your > edit > > count up), what earthly point is there to project tagging unless the > project > > has some active processes to improve articles? Some are just annoying > (like > > the user who dislikes the word “comprised”) and many of these people > create > > edit conflicts for me as I add further content which is ****ing annoying. > > Edit conflicts is a particular problem trying to do your second/third > edit > > to a new article, as new articles attract housekeeping edits like > vultures > > to a carcass. The folks I particularly despise are the ones who try to > add > > multiple quality tags or speedy delete a new stub after its first edit > > (which is sometimes cut short because I am interrupted – folks, give me 5 > > minutes please to come back and do a little more work on it). > > > > > > > > I teach Wikipedia editing (indeed I am off to a local university to do it > > this morning) and I see first hand how this kind of housekeeping > behaviour > > is really disruptive to new contributors (even the more useful and > > well-intended housekeeping) because of the edit conflicts it creates. New > > contributors spend a long time writing and previewing before SAVE, which > is > > probably a desirable behaviour if it wasn’t for the housekeepers. Whereas > > anyone who studied my patterns of edits would see me saving very > frequently, > > because of this issue with edit conflicts from the housekeepers. I try to > > teach people to SAVE, SAVE, SAVE as often as possible. Having seen the > > impact of edit conflicts in edit training sessions where I am there to > > explain what’s happening, I suspect that housekeeping edits are probably > > frightening off or frustrating away new contributors who don’t have > someone > > leaning over their shoulder to advise them on dealing with edit > conflicts. > > Because it is quick and easy to do a housekeeping edit and slow to write > > good content with citations, the housekeepers can easily drive away a > > content contributor. > > > > > > > > Kerry > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org > > [mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of > Jonathan > > Morgan > > Sent: Wednesday, 24 June 2015 3:24 AM > > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities > > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Aaron Swartz Hypothesis on > > WikipediaAuthorship > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Finn Årup Nielsen <f...@imm.dtu.dk> > wrote: > > > > > > One interesting original study is this one: "Creating, Destroying, and > > Restoring Value in Wikipedia" from 2007 by > > Reid Priedhorsky and others. > > http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1316624.1316663 > > > > > > > > Yes, this is the best study of which I'm aware. > > > > > > > > - J > > > > > > > > > > best regards > > Finn Årup Nielsen > > > > > > > > > > > > On 06/23/2015 04:46 PM, Krzysztof Gajewski wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > I wonder if you know if somebody verified and / or further researched > > Aaron Swartz's thesis on structure of Wikipedia participation. You can > > find it here: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia > > > > Best, > > Krzysztof Gajewski > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wiki-research-l mailing list > > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > > > > > -- > > Finn Årup Nielsen > > http://people.compute.dtu.dk/faan/ > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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) > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > > -- > Krzysztof Gajewski > +48 698 793 756 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
