> my personal interpretation is that BLP failings were more likely to be seen and more likely to cause some kind of real or perceived harm, leading to a greater response rate.
I suppose that if your a notable figure... you probably take a look to see if a Wikipedia article exists... and even money says you won't like what you find. Other subject don't quite have the "personal" connection :) Tom On 22 May 2011 23:03, Andrew Gray <andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk> wrote: > On 22 May 2011 19:58, Sarah <slimvir...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The BLP problem is a very divisive one on the English Wikipedia, but > > it's not entirely clear how grounded it is in fact. Sometimes we're > > told OTRS is overwhelmed by the number of BLP complaints, but no > > figures are given. > > > > Some hard stats -- X number of complaints concerning Y number of > > articles within time T, of which Z were actionable -- would be very > > useful. > > Some figures Amory Meltzer and I came up with in 2010: > > In a single week in late 2009, we got an average of 40-50 active > tickets per day - not spam, not people thinking we were someone else, > etc. 15% of those were about BLP issues. If we look *only* at tickets > about specific article issues (removing the general WP/WMF-related > enquiries and "normal" vandalism reports), BLP tickets made up 30% of > the traffic. Making an estimate for recurring cases, this suggests we > get contacted regarding 2,000 to 2,500 BLP issues per year. I don't > have any figures on actionability, I'm afraid, but it's an intriguing > question... > > The vast majority of these were regarding one specific BLP article; a > couple were BLP issues on non-BLP articles, usually companies and > towns. All told, BLP articles proportionally generated about two to > three times more issues than other content. > > The interesting aspect here is that two-thirds of BLP issues are > reported by the subject, or by someone close to or involved with the > subject (a relative, colleague, agent, etc). If we look *only* at > third-party reports, BLPs seem to generate about as much traffic as > any other content. The same held for looking solely at "normal" > vandalism reports - 15%. Read what you will into that one... my > personal interpretation is that BLP failings were more likely to be > seen and more likely to cause some kind of real or perceived harm, > leading to a greater response rate. > > From the *workload* perspective, however, whilst BLPs only make up > ~15% of traffic, they take up substantially more time and effort. My > initial estimate was that they take up at least half the editor-hours > put into handling OTRS tickets; it would be hard to quantify this > without some fairly detailed surveys, but it feels right. > > Writing to someone involved with the issue personally is always more > complicated, especially if they're - justifiably - angry or worried > about the situation. The problems are often quite complex, so can sit > longer while people consider how to approach the issue, and are more > likely to involve (long-term) onwiki followup, or require multiple > rounds of correspondence. > > As a result, I suspect my 30% of "article issues" and Christine's 45% > are closer than they might seem - there's an unusually large backlog > of tickets this past month, compared to the situation a few months > ago, and so a count based on "still open" will suggest more of them > than actually come in on a daily basis. > > Regarding a separate BLP queue, we found that a significant number of > tickets get handled in the "wrong" queues, because it's often simpler > for someone to respond to the email wherever it's come in rather than > move the ticket and then respond to it. Which is perfectly fine, of > course - a response goes out and everyone's happy - but it does mean > that the response data categorised by queue is often fairly > inaccurate. For meaningful data on any particular class of tickets, > you'd probably have to sample. > > Apologies for the length, but hopefully that's of some use! > > -- > - Andrew Gray > andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
