The Wikipedia Critics' Forum
https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/
These studies may represent appropriate support for your claims, but they may not. I'm seeing that there is a lot of focus on "detection" methods, and time-to-revert detected vandal edits. What the studies don't address is that there are forms of vandalism that go undetected (as vandalism) and are therefore never reverted.Flameau wrote:Sorry if this is off-topic, but I think it is a good rebuttal.
Of course a lot of vandalism is subjective too though. Some well intentioned edits have been identified as vandalism and some admins actions have been reverted as vandalism by those who don't agree.Kelly Martin wrote:A lot of the vandalism studies on Wikipedia define "vandalism" as "any edit that is reverted as vandalism". Which means 100% of "vandalism" is detected, and all that is measured is how fast it happens. Actually independently reviewing even a sample of edits and classifying them requires effort that cannot be done by computer. A couple of studies have had the funding to hire enough RAs to do this (I think one actually used Amazon's Mechanical Turk), but for the most part the party doing the study simply didn't want to put out that much effort.
I performed such a study two years ago, myself, using a random block of recent changes. And I generated a nice chart. (Which no one seems to want to see or cares about.)Kelly Martin wrote:A lot of the vandalism studies on Wikipedia define "vandalism" as "any edit that is reverted as vandalism". Which means 100% of "vandalism" is detected, and all that is measured is how fast it happens. Actually independently reviewing even a sample of edits and classifying them requires effort that cannot be done by computer. A couple of studies have had the funding to hire enough RAs to do this (I think one actually used Amazon's Mechanical Turk), but for the most part the party doing the study simply didn't want to put out that much effort.
I was going to post this exact post but was overcome with ennui.Johnny Au wrote:That 96 million potential articles is growing (especially due to new events (including sporting events), new discoveries, new inventions, new people who become famous, and new works being created).
Certainly, everything covered in the 1911 edition does.thekohser wrote:I would venture a guess that every topic that receives coverage in Britannica probably has a corresponding article in Wikipedia.
Shut up and put it up here.EricBarbour wrote:I performed such a study two years ago, myself, using a random block of recent changes. And I generated a nice chart. (Which no one seems to want to see or cares about.)Kelly Martin wrote:A lot of the vandalism studies on Wikipedia define "vandalism" as "any edit that is reverted as vandalism". Which means 100% of "vandalism" is detected, and all that is measured is how fast it happens. Actually independently reviewing even a sample of edits and classifying them requires effort that cannot be done by computer. A couple of studies have had the funding to hire enough RAs to do this (I think one actually used Amazon's Mechanical Turk), but for the most part the party doing the study simply didn't want to put out that much effort.
No, no.Vocal wrote:Shut up and put it up here.EricBarbour wrote:I performed such a study two years ago, myself, using a random block of recent changes. And I generated a nice chart. (Which no one seems to want to see or cares about.)Kelly Martin wrote:A lot of the vandalism studies on Wikipedia define "vandalism" as "any edit that is reverted as vandalism". Which means 100% of "vandalism" is detected, and all that is measured is how fast it happens. Actually independently reviewing even a sample of edits and classifying them requires effort that cannot be done by computer. A couple of studies have had the funding to hire enough RAs to do this (I think one actually used Amazon's Mechanical Turk), but for the most part the party doing the study simply didn't want to put out that much effort.
Kneel, slaves.Vigilant wrote:No, no.Vocal wrote:Shut up and put it up here.
You have to beg him.
980 diffs?! That was a ton of work, Eric. Good to see that you also saw 4% vandalism, which is in line with other studies. It's a nice feature that you also caught nearly 1% that were reverts that should have been abstained from. It's too bad that you didn't specifically track what happened to each of the 4% vandal edits, but that would have been even more work, and you're not paid for this stuff the way the Wikimedia Foundation staff is, and they do a lot less than you in the content analysis department!.EricBarbour wrote:Kneel, slaves.
Bumped from another thread...Randy from Boise wrote:I think that "Wikipedia Articles Which Need to be Created" might be a productive thread. WP really doesn't have a good apparatus for steering willing content people to needed work.Poetlister wrote:The majority of people in the Dictionary of National Biography don't have articles. (Quite a few just have copies of the DNB articles so are in need of an update, but that's another issue.)sparkzilla wrote:I wonder which articles need to be created? The encyclopedia is effectively finished. What more needs to be said about Fourier transforms? I am genuinely interested in what "encyclopedic" content you think needs to be created. Can you give some examples?
I agree with the implication of Poetlister's statement that one of WP's big gaps is in the area of "Biographies of Dead People." The coverage of American state politicians of the 19th Century is extremely poor, for example. If you look at my friend Orange Mike's edit history, he has done yeoman's work putting up basic bios of 19th C. Wisconsin state politicians. Most states are in worse shape.
In general, there is a great deal to be done with 19th Century American bios of all types. I can only presume that the situation is similar for 19th Century British biography, and much, much worse for biographies of this era from all other countries.
South American history is awful. I don't delve into it much, I know little about it, but every time I bump into related topics I am struck by the weakness. Major figures have bios, sometimes good, but even 20th Century biographies are poor. National histories are not strong for the region. I presume the situation for Asia and Africa is worse.
Economics on WP is ghastly. It would take a dozen good content people a couple years to get that topic up to snuff.
These off the top of my head.
Most people come to WP wanting to write about some "big" topic though — and these have been well covered and often have numerous "gatekeepers" watching the content.
RfB
More than seven months later, and Wikipedia has gained one article (out of these three). It is one sentence long.thekohser wrote:Okay, I will play along.
Annaly Capital Management (T-H-L) is the sixth-fastest growing company in the Fortune 1000. Wikipedia has never bothered to create an article about it.
Superior Energy Services (T-H-L) is the seventh-fastest growing company in the Fortune 1000, and it will likely soon be in the Fortune 500. Wikipedia doesn't care.
Nexeo Solutions Holdings (T-H-L) is the eleventh-fastest growing company in the Fortune 1000, also on a potential quick track to the Fortune 500. No shit has been given by Wikipedia.
I could go on, but I grow weary.
We can say this as a general rule: coverage of corporation histories is abysmal, even for very large corporations.thekohser wrote:More than seven months later, and Wikipedia has gained one article (out of these three). It is one sentence long.thekohser wrote:Okay, I will play along.
Annaly Capital Management (T-H-L) is the sixth-fastest growing company in the Fortune 1000. Wikipedia has never bothered to create an article about it.
Superior Energy Services (T-H-L) is the seventh-fastest growing company in the Fortune 1000, and it will likely soon be in the Fortune 500. Wikipedia doesn't care.
Nexeo Solutions Holdings (T-H-L) is the eleventh-fastest growing company in the Fortune 1000, also on a potential quick track to the Fortune 500. No shit has been given by Wikipedia.
I could go on, but I grow weary.
Always improving!
You can thank Orlady, an employee of Oak Ridge, for that.Cla68 wrote:To my surprise, no article on the 1958 Y-12 criticality incident. The incident isn't even mentioned in the main article.
(cur | prev) 05:49, 9 June 2011 Alison (talk | contribs) m . . (8,768 bytes) (0) . . (Protected Y-12 National Security Complex: Oversight issues / ticket:2011060910002682 ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 05:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 05:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)))) (undo)
(cur | prev) 05:23, 9 June 2011 Bms4880 (talk | contribs) m . . (8,768 bytes) (-587) . . (Undid revision 433334996 by J-water334 (talk)- removing unencyclopedic)
(cur | prev) 04:45, 9 June 2011 J-water334 (talk | contribs) . . (9,355 bytes) (+587) . . (→History)
(cur | prev) 19:58, 7 June 2011 Orlady (talk | contribs) m . . (8,768 bytes) (-587) . . (Reverted edits by J-water334 (talk) to last version by Dysmorodrepanis)
(cur | prev) 19:20, 7 June 2011 J-water334 (talk | contribs) . . (9,355 bytes) (+587)
I wasn't going to add the info to the article, but very little motivates me more than when a WP insider is giving the appearance of trying to cover something up. There it is. Later on, I will create a redirect page called "Y-12 criticality incident".EricBarbour wrote:You can thank Orlady, an employee of Oak Ridge, for that.Cla68 wrote:To my surprise, no article on the 1958 Y-12 criticality incident. The incident isn't even mentioned in the main article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =556195936
It was oversighted, and related to highly personal information posted about an employee. Nothing sinister - just highly inappropriate. And that's all I can say.EricBarbour wrote:Plus, something happened in June 2011 that was rev-deleted:(cur | prev) 05:49, 9 June 2011 Alison (talk | contribs) m . . (8,768 bytes) (0) . . (Protected Y-12 National Security Complex: Oversight issues / ticket:2011060910002682 ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 05:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 05:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)))) (undo)
(cur | prev) 05:23, 9 June 2011 Bms4880 (talk | contribs) m . . (8,768 bytes) (-587) . . (Undid revision 433334996 by J-water334 (talk)- removing unencyclopedic)
(cur | prev) 04:45, 9 June 2011 J-water334 (talk | contribs) . . (9,355 bytes) (+587) . . (→History)
(cur | prev) 19:58, 7 June 2011 Orlady (talk | contribs) m . . (8,768 bytes) (-587) . . (Reverted edits by J-water334 (talk) to last version by Dysmorodrepanis)
(cur | prev) 19:20, 7 June 2011 J-water334 (talk | contribs) . . (9,355 bytes) (+587)
You must be a very, very busy man, then.Cla68 wrote:...very little motivates me more than when a WP insider is giving the appearance of trying to cover something up.
President/Executive Director, William Trawickmac wrote:NATM Buying Group. I forget what NATM stands for, but they bought out my old employer nearly 20 years ago. This 2008 article says of Sun Television and H H Gregg: "Both firms belong to NATM Buying Corp., perhaps the most influential buying group in their business.": link
And before anyone says "because Wikipedia doesn't host biographies about people who are mostly famous for one embarrassing act", please see Shannon Richardson (T-H-L).mac wrote:Forrest Hayes, married Google executive and father of five who died of a heroin overdose, allegedly administered by a prostitute. link
Oh look, it was deleted from Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forrest Hayes (T-H-L). I wonder why.
There are a few articles within Category:Twitter controversies (T-H-L)Johnny Au wrote:Criticism of Twitter (T-H-L) does not exist. Yes, people do die from tweets, albeit indirectly (mainly through cyberbullying).
It is not to be confused with Censorship of Twitter (T-H-L), which mainly involves governments blocking said website.
...and none involve school boards or cyberbullying cases involving Twitter; most involve government and/or celebrities and/or journalism and/or pranks. There should be a general article on Twitter controversies that include those that don't merit their own articles.Drowninginlimbo wrote:There are a few articles within Category:Twitter controversies (T-H-L)Johnny Au wrote:Criticism of Twitter (T-H-L) does not exist. Yes, people do die from tweets, albeit indirectly (mainly through cyberbullying).
It is not to be confused with Censorship of Twitter (T-H-L), which mainly involves governments blocking said website.
Yeah I agree, these articles could be a good place to build it around, as well as sources specific to cyberbullying, and abhorrent trending hashtags like "jadapose" and the revenge porn "Twitter Purge". Now that I think about it Twitter has been used for disgusting purposes.Johnny Au wrote:...and none involve school boards or cyberbullying cases involving Twitter; most involve government and/or celebrities and/or journalism and/or pranks. There should be a general article on Twitter controversies that include those that don't merit their own articles.Drowninginlimbo wrote:There are a few articles within Category:Twitter controversies (T-H-L)Johnny Au wrote:Criticism of Twitter (T-H-L) does not exist. Yes, people do die from tweets, albeit indirectly (mainly through cyberbullying).
It is not to be confused with Censorship of Twitter (T-H-L), which mainly involves governments blocking said website.
I must agree. I wonder why such an article has not been made. There are articles on the criticism of Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, and Reddit, but not Twitter (especially outside the context of governments).Drowninginlimbo wrote:Yeah I agree, these articles could be a good place to build it around, as well as sources specific to cyberbullying, and abhorrent trending hashtags like "jadapose" and the revenge porn "Twitter Purge". Now that I think about it Twitter has been used for disgusting purposes.Johnny Au wrote:...and none involve school boards or cyberbullying cases involving Twitter; most involve government and/or celebrities and/or journalism and/or pranks. There should be a general article on Twitter controversies that include those that don't merit their own articles.Drowninginlimbo wrote:There are a few articles within Category:Twitter controversies (T-H-L)Johnny Au wrote:Criticism of Twitter (T-H-L) does not exist. Yes, people do die from tweets, albeit indirectly (mainly through cyberbullying).
It is not to be confused with Censorship of Twitter (T-H-L), which mainly involves governments blocking said website.
Kelly Martin wrote:[...]Stage 1, move all criticisms into a "criticism of" section. Stage 2, split the criticisms off to their own article. Stage 3, get the criticism article trimmed as "one-sided". Stage 4, have the criticism article deleted and redirected back to the article.
Some articles have been through this cycle dozens of times.
I've been reading the "Controversial Reddit communities" article history recently as it crosses over with some of my other... ahem... interests. It is interesting how these things are put together. I imagine as long as these websites are unpopular enough with Wikipedia editors the criticism article should remain undeleted.mac wrote:Twitter has not yet achieved stage one of the "criticism removal churn process" described by Kelly Martin here: link
Kelly Martin wrote:[...]Stage 1, move all criticisms into a "criticism of" section. Stage 2, split the criticisms off to their own article. Stage 3, get the criticism article trimmed as "one-sided". Stage 4, have the criticism article deleted and redirected back to the article.
Some articles have been through this cycle dozens of times.
I think there's about a 3% chance that you are correct.Johnny Au wrote:I bet that Twitter... donated some of its profits to the WMF to cover all of this up.
I like those odds. 3% is a huge number.thekohser wrote:I think there's about a 3% chance that you are correct.Johnny Au wrote:I bet that Twitter... donated some of its profits to the WMF to cover all of this up.
It doesn't help that the report function on Twitter is so unintuitive either, that and the fact that they rarely respond to harassment reports.Johnny Au wrote:I like those odds. 3% is a huge number.thekohser wrote:I think there's about a 3% chance that you are correct.Johnny Au wrote:I bet that Twitter... donated some of its profits to the WMF to cover all of this up.
In a CNBC interview with the CEO of Twitter, 30% of the audience raised concerns about safety, privacy, and bullying on Twitter. The CEO responded that Twitter would have double verification (using text messages), just like Google. However, that does not address privacy or bullying concerns.
Many people died from tweets, the vast majority of which is unreported, as many are the result of cyberbullying and many victims and perpetrators of cyberbullying fear reporting incidents to authorities, even anonymously, since they believe in "no-snitching."
Twitter's inner circle is no different from Wikipedia's inner circle, full of admins who care about themselves and don't bother resolving harassment issues. Yes, that is a major failing of Twitter. Unintuitive reporting plus admins who don't care plus distrust of authority figures = culture of cyberbullyingDrowninginlimbo wrote:It doesn't help that the report function on Twitter is so unintuitive either, that and the fact that they rarely respond to harassment reports.Johnny Au wrote:I like those odds. 3% is a huge number.thekohser wrote:I think there's about a 3% chance that you are correct.Johnny Au wrote:I bet that Twitter... donated some of its profits to the WMF to cover all of this up.
In a CNBC interview with the CEO of Twitter, 30% of the audience raised concerns about safety, privacy, and bullying on Twitter. The CEO responded that Twitter would have double verification (using text messages), just like Google. However, that does not address privacy or bullying concerns.
Many people died from tweets, the vast majority of which is unreported, as many are the result of cyberbullying and many victims and perpetrators of cyberbullying fear reporting incidents to authorities, even anonymously, since they believe in "no-snitching."
This could be promising: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... e-network/Johnny Au wrote:Twitter's inner circle is no different from Wikipedia's inner circle, full of admins who care about themselves and don't bother resolving harassment issues. Yes, that is a major failing of Twitter. Unintuitive reporting plus admins who don't care plus distrust of authority figures = culture of cyberbullyingDrowninginlimbo wrote: It doesn't help that the report function on Twitter is so unintuitive either, that and the fact that they rarely respond to harassment reports.
That is just public relations. It would not fix its problems (and fixing them may create new problems, such as privacy concerns). It is a little too late.Drowninginlimbo wrote:This could be promising: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... e-network/Johnny Au wrote:Twitter's inner circle is no different from Wikipedia's inner circle, full of admins who care about themselves and don't bother resolving harassment issues. Yes, that is a major failing of Twitter. Unintuitive reporting plus admins who don't care plus distrust of authority figures = culture of cyberbullyingDrowninginlimbo wrote: It doesn't help that the report function on Twitter is so unintuitive either, that and the fact that they rarely respond to harassment reports.