The new issue of the Wikimedia Research Newsletter contains a review of the paper by Denny, also mentioning the debate on this list and on ANI: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/09/12/research-newsletter-august-2016/ (there is some additional discussion in the comments there and on the talk page of the Signpost version)
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 8:20 PM, Stuart A. Yeates <syea...@gmail.com> wrote: > For the sake of completeness, the archival URL for the thread at ANI is > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive931#Moving_discussion_from_wikimedia_research_mailing_list > > cheers > stuart > > -- > ...let us be heard from red core to black sky > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 7:04 AM, Samuel Klein <meta...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Thanks Sidd for responding actively in this thread. >> >> The biggest problem here: the algorithm used in this research were bad. >> They produced nonsense that wasn't remotely grammatical. You should have >> caught most of these problems. (The early version of the bot (for just >> plays) had a poor success rate as well, but it seemed plausible that a >> template for tiny play articles could be effectively filled out with >> automation.) >> >> Two interesting results IMO: >> + A nonsensical article with a decent first sentence & sections, and refs >> (however random), can serve as encouragement to write a real article. >> Possibly more of an encouragement than just the first sentence alone. I >> believe there's some related research into how people respond to cold emails >> that include mistakes & nonsense. (Surely there's a more effective \ >> non-offensive way to produce similar results) >> + We could use even a naive measure of the coverage & consistency of new >> article review. (If it drops below a certain threshhold, we could do >> something like change the background color & search-engine metadata for >> pages that haven't been properly reviewed yet) >> >> For future researchers: >> If we encourage people to spend more time making tools work – rather than >> doing something simple (even counterproductive) and writing a paper about it >> – everyone will benefit. The main namespace is full of bots, both fully >> automatic and requiring a human to run them. Anyone considering or >> implementing wiki automation should look at them and talk to the community >> of bot maintainers. >> >> Sam >> >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 1:28 PM, siddhartha banerjee <sidd2...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Ziko, >>> >>> Thanks for your detailed email. Agree on all the comments. >>> >>> Some earlier comments might have been harsh, but I understand that there >>> is a valid reason behind it and also the dedication of so many people >>> involved to help reach Wikipedia where it is today. >>> >>> We should have been more diligent in finding out policies and rules >>> (including IRB) before entering content on Wikipedia. We promise not to >>> repeat anything of this sort in the future and also I am trying to summarize >>> all that has been discussed here to prevent such unpleasant experiences from >>> other researchers in this area. >>> >>> -- Sidd >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -- Tilman Bayer Senior Analyst Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
