Hello Sue-Laine, Interesting, I am very much looking forward to your results/paper.
Allow me a note on „reverts“. I am not sure which is the exact metholody you want to use, and what is your approach / field in general. It comes to my mind that a good definition of revert is needed. Technically, a revert means that you re-install a previous page version (I guess). But sometimes, also in the technical dimension, this is done by the „revert“ function (or the revert function that enables a comment), and sometimes „manually“ by creating a new version with old content. Sometimes, the revert is a full revert, sometimes a partial revert. Sometimes, the old version is text A, the new version is text B, and then the „revert“ actually is a version with text A‘ or B‘ or C (the apostroph in my writing means: similar to). Also, what about reverting yourself? With what motive exactly? If I am correct you have mentioned some examples dealing with the reason for deletion. That is an important approach too, of course. It would be another step to consider the consequences of a revert in the social dimension. So how does a revert afflict the social relationship between the editors involved. And how is the general atmosphere on the wiki afflicted. Here some thought, maybe useful or not. :-) Kind regards Ziko Tilman Bayer <haebw...@gmail.com> schrieb am Sa. 1. Feb. 2020 um 03:25: > Concerning 1) and about analyzing reverts in general, see > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revert . > > To explore 5), https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/AbuseFilter and > https://tools.wmflabs.org/ptwikis/Filters:enwiki may be of interest. > > Regards, HaeB > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 12:01 PM Su-Laine Brodsky <sulai...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > I’m looking for statistics about the edits that are reverted on the > > English Wikipedia. This is for purposes of explaining to the public what > > Wikipedia’s quality control processes are like. If hard numbers aren’t > > available, I’m also interested in educated guesstimates. > > > > 1) An often-quoted statistic is that 7% of edits are reverted. Is this > > still believed to be true? > > > > 2) According to > > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/07/19/scoring-platform-team/, 2.5% of > > edits are vandalism. There are other common reasons for reverting, and > I’m > > wondering if anyone has studied their frequency. Does anyone know what > > percentage of all edits are reverted for being: > > a) Spam (as perceived by the reverter) > > b) Copyright violation > > c) Violations of the Biographies of Living Persons policy > > > > 3) Do statistics on the number of edits per day on the English Wikipedia > > (i.e. 164,000 edits per day) include edits that are blocked by the spam > > blacklists or by edit filters? > > > > 4) How many edits per day on the English Wikiepdia are prevented > (blocked) > > by the spam blacklists? > > > > 5) How many edits per day on the English Wikiepdia are prevented by the > > edit filters? > > > > 6) What percentage of all reverts are made by users of Huggle and Stiki? > > > > 7) What proportion of vandalism is quickly reverted? A 2007 study > > (Priedhorsky et al) found that 42% of vandalistic contributions are > > repaired within one view and 70% within ten views - have any newer > studies > > been done on this? > > > > Thanks in advance! > > > > Su-Laine > > Vancouver, BC > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
