Greg, Yes that's what I meant. On Wikipedia you get what you measure, so many Wikipedians are page-creators and page-hit junkies because we can measure that. The trick to motivating editors is giving them other measurements for progress. Here is the link to the Women writers Wikiproject and as you scroll down you can see what is measured. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_writers Jane
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 3:39 AM Greg <thenatureprog...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for sharing your experience and thoughts, Jane. I did not know this > was happening--I'm hardly an expert, so that's not surprising, and yet it's > still very troubling to hear. I'm not sure what you mean by setting up a > Wikiproject. Do you mean of ways for how to study this gap--i.e., the ideas > that have been floated in this thread to this point? Or are you thinking of > something else? > > Greg > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 5:00 AM < > wiki-research-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org> > wrote: > > > Send Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to > > wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > wiki-research-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > wiki-research-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Wiki-research-l digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: gender balance of Wikipedia citations (WereSpielChequers) > > 2. Re: gender balance of Wikipedia citations (Greg) > > 3. Re: sockpuppets and how to find them sooner (Federico Leva (Nemo)) > > 4. Re: gender balance of Wikipedia citations (Jane Darnell) > > 5. Re: gender balance of wikipedia citations (Federico Leva (Nemo)) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2019 14:28:25 +0100 > > From: WereSpielChequers <werespielchequ...@gmail.com> > > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities > > <wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of Wikipedia citations > > Message-ID: > > <CAAanWP3qJnMpLB4tr9Eqt4EJLg2kCihkb50UY-d8= > > shnonh...@mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > One of the major step changes in the early growth of the English > Wikipedia > > was when a bot called RamBot created stub articles on US places. I think > > they were cited to the census. Others have created articles on rivers in > > countries and various other topics by similar programmatic means. > Nowadays > > such article creation is unlikely to get consensus on the English > > Wikipedia, but there are some languages which are very open to such > > creations and have them by the million. > > > > I'm not sure if the fastest updating of existing articles is automated or > > just semiautomated. But looking at the bot requests page, it certainly > > looks like some people are running such maintenance bots "updating GDP by > > country" is a current bot request. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bot_requests. > > > > I'm not sure how "the ease of a source for purposes of converting into a > > table and generating a separate article for each row" relates to gender. > > But i suspect "number of times cited in wikipedia" deserves less kudos > than > > "number of times cited in academia". > > > > WSC > > > > On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 05:22, Greg <thenatureprog...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Thanks again, Kerry. I am hoping that someone with access to more > > resources > > > (knowledge, support, etc) than I have will look into this. > > > > > > A few more thoughts/questions: > > > > > > 1. The link to the citation dataset from the Medium article ("What are > > the > > > ten most cited sources on Wikipedia? Let’s ask the data.") is broken. > > > 2. As far as I can tell, every named author in the top ten most cited > > > sources on Wikipedia is male. One piece is by a working group > > > 3. This line from the Medium piece struck me: "Many of these > publications > > > have been cited by Wikipedians across large series of articles using > > > powerful bots and automated tools." > > > > > > Are citations being added by bots? I'm not sure that I understand that > > line > > > correctly. > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2019 21:16:25 -0700 > > From: Greg <thenatureprog...@gmail.com> > > To: wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of Wikipedia citations > > Message-ID: > > <CAOO9DNvGyfvJkzyRq60cSQi-T80mAkUa= > > vcpkzfbeysfgqq...@mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Thanks, WSC. All very interesting. > > > > I've been thinking about Wiklpedia citations less in terms of kudos and > > more in terms of a feedback loop. The cited sources get a significant > > amount of attention (1 click per 200 pageviews is the number I saw > > recently). When I imagine total Wikipedia traffic, that's huge. How many > > students are finding sources this way? How many academics? And how many > of > > these citations are finding their way back into academic publications via > > this mechanism? > > > > Assuming this is happening to some degree, the gender imbalance of the > > citations is also reflected. If the Wikipedia imbalance is the same as > the > > one in academia, that's one thing; if it is better on Wikipedia than it > is > > in academia, that's reason to celebrate; if the balance is worse, that's > > concerning. In fact, if the gender imbalance conforms to my fears instead > > of my hopes, and is magnified by the massive website traffic, I imagine > it > > could even explain the growth in the citation disparity researchers note > in > > their study of political science texts. (I link to that study in a > previous > > post; it was mentioned in the Washington Post recently) > > > > There is a very real possibility that Wikipedia is making the citation > > gender gap worse. I think we need to understand what is happening and > take > > immediate action if the news is not good. > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:59:07 +0300 > > From: "Federico Leva (Nemo)" <nemow...@gmail.com> > > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities > > <wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, Aaron Halfaker > > <ahalfa...@wikimedia.org>, Kerry Raymond < > kerry.raym...@gmail.com> > > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] sockpuppets and how to find them sooner > > Message-ID: <cf2734ff-d2cf-3108-691f-8ecf46125...@gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > > > Please everyone avoid using jargon specific to the English Wikipedia on > > this cross-language and cross-wiki mailing list. > > > > Aaron Halfaker, 23/08/19 17:36: > > > I think embeddings[1] would be a nice way to create a signature. > > > > There is some discussion of acceptable user fingerprinting (presumably > > to be available to CheckUsers only), other than the usual over-reliance > > on IP addresses, in particular at > > < > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:IP_Editing:_Privacy_Enhancement_and_Abuse_Mitigation > > >. > > > > Federico > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:17:46 +0200 > > From: Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com> > > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities > > <wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of Wikipedia citations > > Message-ID: > > <CAFVcA-G87k26nBMr=-e-+C8o6eG0KQvVihH= > > f4m40favnbk...@mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Greg, > > Thanks for worrying. This is a known problem and yes, Wikipedia > contributes > > to the Gendergap in citations and no, it's not an easy fix, since it is > the > > fault of systemic bias in academia. So fewer women are head author on > > scientific publications, and it is generally only the head author that > gets > > cited on Wikipedia. This is not just a problem with written works in the > > field of politics. I spend most of my time working on paintings and > their > > documented catalogs, so generally I only notice and fix this problem in > art > > catalogs. Women rarely appear as lead author mentioned. I will always add > > them in to descriptions when I add items for their works on Wikidata, > but I > > can not always find them! Sometimes I can't even create items for them > > because all I have is a name and a work and nothing else available online > > anywhere. You see this most often with women who spent entire careers > > working at a single institution and the institution doesn't bother to > > promote their work or even list them in exhibition catalogs. With luck > > there might be a local obituary, but not always. If you have suggestions > > how to set up a Wikiproject to tackle this it would be a good idea. In my > > onwiki experience the Women-in-Red community can be very positive in > their > > response to gendergap-related issues for women writers. > > Jane > > > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 6:17 AM Greg <thenatureprog...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Thanks, WSC. All very interesting. > > > > > > I've been thinking about Wiklpedia citations less in terms of kudos and > > > more in terms of a feedback loop. The cited sources get a significant > > > amount of attention (1 click per 200 pageviews is the number I saw > > > recently). When I imagine total Wikipedia traffic, that's huge. How > many > > > students are finding sources this way? How many academics? And how many > > of > > > these citations are finding their way back into academic publications > via > > > this mechanism? > > > > > > Assuming this is happening to some degree, the gender imbalance of the > > > citations is also reflected. If the Wikipedia imbalance is the same as > > the > > > one in academia, that's one thing; if it is better on Wikipedia than it > > is > > > in academia, that's reason to celebrate; if the balance is worse, > that's > > > concerning. In fact, if the gender imbalance conforms to my fears > instead > > > of my hopes, and is magnified by the massive website traffic, I imagine > > it > > > could even explain the growth in the citation disparity researchers > note > > in > > > their study of political science texts. (I link to that study in a > > previous > > > post; it was mentioned in the Washington Post recently) > > > > > > There is a very real possibility that Wikipedia is making the citation > > > gender gap worse. I think we need to understand what is happening and > > take > > > immediate action if the news is not good. > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list > > > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 5 > > Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:45:09 +0300 > > From: "Federico Leva (Nemo)" <nemow...@gmail.com> > > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities > > <wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, Greg > > <thenatureprog...@gmail.com> > > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of wikipedia citations > > Message-ID: <835202af-4653-641e-782e-c619458bd...@gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > > > Greg, 22/08/19 06:19: > > > I do not know the current status of wikicite or if/when this > > > could be used for this inquiry--either to examine all, or a sensible > > subset > > > of the citations. > > > > If I see correctly, you still did not receive an answer on the data > > available. > > > > It's true that the Figshare item for > > < > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Scholarly_article_citations_in_Wikipedia > > > > > > was deleted (I've asked about it on the talk page), but it's trivial to > > run https://pypi.org/project/mwcites/ and extract the data yourself, at > > least for citations which use an identifier. > > > > Some example datasets produced this way: > > https://zenodo.org/record/15871 > > https://zenodo.org/record/55004 > > https://zenodo.org/record/54799 > > > > Once you extract the list of works, the fun begins. You'll need to > > intersect with other data sources (Wikidata, ORCID, other?) and account > > for a number of factors until you manage to find a subset of the data > > which has a sufficiently high signal:noise ratio. For instance you might > > need to filter or normalise by > > * year of publication (some year recent enough to have good data but old > > enough to allow the work to be cited elsewhere, be archived after > > embargos); > > * country or institution (some probably have better ORCID coverage); > > * field/discipline and language; > > * open access status (per Unpaywall); > > * number of expected pageviews and clicks (for instance using > > <https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Analytics/AQS/Pageviews> and > > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_clickstream#Releases > >; > > > > a link from 10k articles on asteroids or proteins is not the same as > > being the lone link from a popular article which is not the same as a > > link buried among a thousand others on a big article); > > * time or duration of the addition (with one of the various diff > > extraction libraries, content persistence data or possibly historical > > eventstream if such a thing is available). > > > > To avoid having to invent everything yourself, maybe you can reuse the > > method of some similar study, for instance the one on the open access > > citation advantage or one of the many which studied the gender imbalance > > of citations and peer review in journals. > > > > However, it's very possible that the noise is just too much for a > > general computational method. You might consider a more manual approach > > on a sample of relevant events, for instance the *removal* of citations, > > which is in my opinion more significant than the addition.* You might > > extract all the diffs which removed a citation from an article in the > > last N years (probably they'll be in the order of 10^5 rather than > > 10^6), remove some massive events or outliers, sample 500-1000 of them > > randomly and verify the required data manually. > > > > As usual it will be impossible to have an objective assessment of > > whether that citation was really (in)appropriate in that context > > according to the (English or whatever) Wikipedia guidelines. To test > > that too, you should replicate one of the various studies of the gender > > imbalance of peer review, perhaps one of those which tried to assess the > > impact of a double blind peer review system on the gender imbalance. > > However, because the sources are already published, you'd need to > > provide the agendered information yourself and make sure the > > participants perform their assessment in some controlled environment > > where they don't have access to any gendered information (i.e. where you > > cut them off the internet). > > > > How many years do you have to work on this project? :-) > > > > Federico > > > > (*) I might add a citation just because it's the first result a popular > > search engine gives me, after glancing at the abstract and maybe the > > journal home page; but if I remove an existing citation, hopefully I've > > at least assessed its content and made a judgement about it, apart from > > cases of mass removals for specific problems with certain articles or > > publication venues. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wiki-research-l mailing list > > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 168, Issue 20 > > ************************************************ > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
