On 8/28/09 2:49 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
>
>
>> Robert, is it possible to share the source for generating the
>> revert-based stats with other folks who may be interested in pursuing
>> further work on the subject? Thanks!
>
> Not as a complet
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Lars Aronsson wrote:
> We can try to find out which edits are reverts, assuming that the
> previous edit was an act of vandalism.
But that's a bad assumption. It gives both false positives and false
negatives, and it gives a significant number of each. I gave
Anthony wrote:
> Umm...you would count the number of instances of vandalism?
>
> Is the question how to objectively *define* "vandalism"?
On one hand, we have a perception, as expressed by media (and by
CEO Sue Gardner, I believe), that vandalism (especially of
biographies of living people, BL
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:17 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/8/28 Robert Rohde :
> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:55 AM, Anthony wrote:
>
> >> Once we have the list, anyone is free to examine it any way they want,
> and
> >> show their results. But we're talking about probably less than 200
> >> ins
2009/8/28 Robert Rohde :
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:55 AM, Anthony wrote:
>> Once we have the list, anyone is free to examine it any way they want, and
>> show their results. But we're talking about probably less than 200
>> instances of vandalism here, so it'll be quite easy (and fun) to lambas
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:55 AM, Anthony wrote:
> Once we have the list, anyone is free to examine it any way they want, and
> show their results. But we're talking about probably less than 200
> instances of vandalism here, so it'll be quite easy (and fun) to lambaste
> anyone whose methods pro
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
> Robert, is it possible to share the source for generating the
> revert-based stats with other folks who may be interested in pursuing
> further work on the subject? Thanks!
Not as a complete stand-alone entity. The analysis framework I
thro
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/28 Anthony :
> > If you're going to do it, maybe we should work on a rough-consensus
> > objective definition of "vandalism" before you release the file,
> though...
>
> Don't we have a consensus definition already? Vandalism is bad f
2009/8/28 Anthony :
> If you're going to do it, maybe we should work on a rough-consensus
> objective definition of "vandalism" before you release the file, though...
Don't we have a consensus definition already? Vandalism is bad faith
editing. You may also want to include test edits since they ar
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Brion Vibber wrote:
> On 8/27/09 9:39 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > 2009/8/28 Gregory Maxwell:
> >> If the results of this kind of study have good agreement with
> >> mechanical proxy metrics (such as machine detected vandalism) our
> >> confidence in those proxie
On 8/27/09 9:39 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/28 Gregory Maxwell:
>> If the results of this kind of study have good agreement with
>> mechanical proxy metrics (such as machine detected vandalism) our
>> confidence in those proxies will increase, if they disagree it will
>> provide an opportunit
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Nathan wrote:
>
> Out of curiosity, Anthony, do you still refrain from editing Wikimedia
> projects over licensing
> issues? How long has it been, a year?
I guess now is as good a time as any to admit it. I started editing again,
without logging in, about a mon
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Anthony wrote:
> Just took a quick sample of 10 instances of vandalism to [[Ted Stevens]].
> Of those 10 instances of vandalism, either 2 or 4 would not have been
> found
> by the automated tool described. 2 if every edit summary containing the
> word "vandalism
Just took a quick sample of 10 instances of vandalism to [[Ted Stevens]].
Of those 10 instances of vandalism, either 2 or 4 would not have been found
by the automated tool described. 2 if every edit summary containing the
word "vandalism" is counted as vandalism, and 4 if not. The former would
p
2009/8/28 Anthony :
> I suggested a better approach last time we had this thread: statistical
> sampling.
This research was based on a sample. What are you talking about?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/28 Anthony :
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
> >
> >> 2009/8/28 Anthony :
> >> >> He means what would you measure in order to draw conclusions about
> the
> >> >> severity of vandalism.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
2009/8/28 Anthony :
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> 2009/8/28 Anthony :
>> >> He means what would you measure in order to draw conclusions about the
>> >> severity of vandalism.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Umm...you would count the number of instances of vandalism?
>>
>> That's not
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/28 Anthony :
> >> He means what would you measure in order to draw conclusions about the
> >> severity of vandalism.
> >>
> >
> > Umm...you would count the number of instances of vandalism?
>
> That's not practical.
I never said it w
2009/8/28 Gregory Maxwell :
> This is somewhat labor intensive, but only somewhat as it doesn't take
> an inordinate number of samples to produce representative results.
> This should be the gold standard for this kind of measurement as it
> would be much closer to what people actually want to know
2009/8/28 Anthony :
>> He means what would you measure in order to draw conclusions about the
>> severity of vandalism.
>>
>
> Umm...you would count the number of instances of vandalism?
That's not practical. That would require a person to go through
article histories revision by revision, probabl
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/28 Anthony :
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Stephen Bain wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Anthony wrote:
>>> > It seems to me to be begging the question. You don't answer the question
>>> > "how bad is vandalism" by ass
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/28 Anthony :
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Stephen Bain >wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Anthony wrote:
> >> >
> >> > It seems to me to be begging the question. You don't answer the
> question
> >> > "how bad
2009/8/28 Anthony :
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Stephen Bain wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Anthony wrote:
>> >
>> > It seems to me to be begging the question. You don't answer the question
>> > "how bad is vandalism" by assuming that vandalism is generally reverted.
>>
>> Can
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Stephen Bain wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Anthony wrote:
> >
> > It seems to me to be begging the question. You don't answer the question
> > "how bad is vandalism" by assuming that vandalism is generally reverted.
>
> Can you suggest a better metric
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Anthony wrote:
>
> It seems to me to be begging the question. You don't answer the question
> "how bad is vandalism" by assuming that vandalism is generally reverted.
Can you suggest a better metric then?
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.b...@gmail.com
_
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Chad wrote:
>
> /rvv?|revert(ing)?[ ]*(vandal(ism)?)?/
>
> Might give you a slightly wider sample.
I'll wait for Robert to release a random sample of edits he actually
identified as "reverts" and/or the actual scripts and data dump he used.
__
Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Thomas Dalton
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I would put money on a significant majority of reverts being
>>> reverts of vandalism rather than BRD reverts, it may not be an
>>> overwhelming majority, though.
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Thomas Dalton
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I would put money on a significant majority of reverts being
>>> reverts of vandalism rather than BRD reverts, it may not be an
>>
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> I would put money on a significant majority of reverts being
>> reverts of vandalism rather than BRD reverts, it may not be an
>> overwhelming majority, though.
>
>
> I don't know about th
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/27 Anthony :
> > Why do you assume that number of reverts has any correlation with amount
> of
> > vandalism? Has this been studied?
>
> It seems to be a sensible assumption, although checking it would be
> wise.
It seems to me to b
2009/8/27 Anthony :
> Why do you assume that number of reverts has any correlation with amount of
> vandalism? Has this been studied?
It seems to be a sensible assumption, although checking it would be
wise. I would put money on a significant majority of reverts being
reverts of vandalism rather
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> I've just read two different news stories on Flagged Revisions that
> described vandalism as a "growing problem" for Wikipedia.
>
> With that in mind, I would like to highlight one specific point in the
> analysis I just did.
>
> The frequenc
1:00 edit1:02 revert
1:06 revert
1:14 revert
1:30 revert
2:02 revert
How many instances of "vandalism" does your program count there, and what is
the mean and median time to revert?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscri
I've just read two different news stories on Flagged Revisions that
described vandalism as a "growing problem" for Wikipedia.
With that in mind, I would like to highlight one specific point in the
analysis I just did.
The frequency of reverts to articles -- as a fraction of total edits
-- has rem
very interesting research - many thanks for sharing that.
- "Robert Rohde" wrote:
> From: "Robert Rohde"
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Sent: Thursday, 27 August, 2009 17:41:29 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
> Portugal
> Su
Recently, I reported on a simple study of how likely one was to
encounter recent vandalism in Wikipedia based on selecting articles at
random and using revert behavior as a proxy for recent vandalism.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-August/054171.html
One of the key limitat
36 matches
Mail list logo
