Hello, In my 2009 study I have looked at some Wikipedias and compared geographika articles with regard to the language in question. There is a theoreme by the socioloinguist Heinz Kloss about the "eigenbezogene Themen", topics, that are related to the own specific linguistic community.
According to Kloss, a community is mainly interested in its own language, culture and history, the country / landscape, and also typical crafts. Kloss argues that there is a relatively rich literature in this language about these topics, and much less about other topics such as aeroplane construction. (I noticed that the university of the Faroe islands, for example, has courses to educate teachers and also a department for nautica and fishing. For other subjects you'll have to leave the islands and also your native language.) In my comparison I checked briefly whether a language version of Wikipedia is at least doing well in articles about its own linguistic reagion. For example, someone who is interested in the Dutch province of Friesland will find for about equally much information in Frisian Wikipedia and Dutch Wikipedia. (At least, in 2008/2009.) This was not the case for Corsican and French Wikipedia, with Corsican Wikipedia being much weaker. I wouldn't call the phenomenon "patriotic editing" because that implies a certain intention that the individual contributors might not have. If I translate Kloss' term, it should be something more like "self related contributing" or "contents with regard to the own (linguistic) community/society". By the way, I don't think that translations from Wikipedia to Wikipedia are the best way to create good content. An article about Paris in Dutch has to differ from the article in French, as you have a different readership with different backgrounds and interests. Kind regards Ziko 2017-01-25 8:20 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>: > Hoi, > A similar thing can be found when you look at the history of a country. > Indonesia and Malaysia have much better articles than English Wikipedia. In > the same way, the content of western nobility is much better served in > Wikidata than the content for Asian nobility. > > This is to be expected. > > The point of the original thread is how to measure the effectiveness of a > chapter. To give a chapter credit for what it does, you will find that > finding a truth in data is highly problematic when you seek a general rule. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 24 January 2017 at 16:27, Peter Ekman <pdek...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Regarding Kerry Raymond's "Patriotic editing hypothesis", I've done >> some very simple informal investigation regarding the quality of >> geographic articles, these are mostly on cities, towns, counties, etc. >> in en:Wikipedia. Geographic articles have much lower average quality >> scores than other subjects (see >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smallbones/Quality4by4 ) >> With just a small bit of poking around it's obvious that the quality >> difference between geo articles and the rest is due to geo articles >> about countries where English is not the native language. A bit more >> poking and something that should have been really obvious jumps out. >> French geo articles on FR:Wiki are much better (at least longer) than >> the corresponding EN:Wiki article; Russian geo articles are much >> better on RU:Wiki than on EN:Wiki, etc. >> >> This is certainly consistent with the "Patriotic editing hypothesis" >> if we define patriotism by language rather than by borders. It could >> be checked out with other language versions e.g. German vs. French; >> (Finnish, Estonian, Polish, German, or Hungarian, etc.) vs.Russian; >> Chinese vs. any language. >> >> The hypothesis even had a very practical implication - we should >> translate more geo articles from their native language Wikipedias. >> >> Hope this helps, >> Pete Ekman >> ==== >> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 11:12:58 +1000 >> From: "Kerry Raymond" <kerry.raym...@gmail.com> >> To: "'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'" >> <wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org> >> Subject: [Wiki-research-l] regional KPIs >> Message-ID: <006701d275df$02016b90$060442b0$@gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> As previously came up in discussion about chapters, it would be very >> useful >> to have national data about Wikipedia activities, which can be determined >> (generally) from IP addresses. Now I understand the privacy argument in >> relation to logged-in users (not saying I agree with it though in relation >> to aggregate data). However, can we find a proxy that does not have the >> privacy considerations. >> >> >> >> My hypothesis is that national content is predominantly written by users >> resident in that nation. And that therefore activity on national content >> can >> be used as a proxy for national user editing activity. >> >> >> >> In the case of Australia, we could describe Australian national content in >> either of two ways: articles within the closure of the >> [[Category:Australia]] and/or those tagged as {{WikiProject Australia}}. >> There are arguments for/against either (neither is perfect, in my >> experience >> the category closure will tend to have false positives and the project >> will >> tend to have false negatives). >> >> >> >> I would like to know what correlation exists between national editor >> activity (as determined from IP addresses mapped to location) and national >> content edits and if/how it changes over time for various nations. This is >> research that only WMF can do because WMF has the IP addresses and the >> rest >> of us can't have them for privacy reasons. >> >> >> >> If we could establish that a strong-enough correlation existed between >> them, >> we could use national content activity (for which there is no privacy >> consideration) as a proxy for national editing activity. And we might even >> be able to come up with a multiplier for each nation to provide comparable >> data for national editing activity. >> >> >> >> Now, it may be that we need to restrict the edits themselves in some way >> to >> maximise the correlations between national content and same-nation editor >> activity. >> >> >> >> My second hypothesis is "semantic" edits (e.g. edits that add large >> amounts >> of content or citation) to national content will be more highly correlated >> with same-nation editors than "syntactic" edits (e.g. fix spelling, >> punctuation or Manual of Style issues) will be. I suspect most bots and >> other automated/semi-automated edits are doing syntactic edits. >> >> >> >> Now, some of you will probably be aware of >> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/ >> 2017-01-17/Recen >> t_research Female Wikipedians aren't more likely to edit women >> biographies]. >> So it may well be that my patriotic-editing hypothesis is also untrue. But >> it would be nice to know one way or the other. >> >> >> >> Kerry >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
