Yearly Archives: 2010

Google helps Wikipedia helping the world … maybe.

In 2008, Google opened a project competing with Wikipedia: Knol. The project at January 2009 had grown to 100,000 articles, something it is hard to define a success.
Wikipedia - Cancer Survivor Since then it seems the attitude of Google towards Wikipedia have changed a bit, more like “Ok, you (Wikipedia) can become the de facto monopolist in the user-generated creation of knowledge, we have other and more challenging competitors to defeat now, we will incorporate you later on down the way”.
Two example of this new attitude (according to my view of course) are the Kiswahili Wikipedia Challenge and the Health Speaks Wikipedia pilot project.

The Kiswahili Wikipedia Challenge was a challenge launched in November 2009 by Google. The task was to translate English Wikipedia articles into Kiswahili or to write Wikipedia articles from scratch. Participants received prizes such as laptops, mobile phones, prepaid internet access modems, Google T-shirts. Google stated goal: “We hope to make the online experience richer and more relevant for 100 million African users who speak Kiswahili.”

The results might not be that great. The Wikipedia Signpost of 2010-07-26 quotes from the blog post what happened on the Google Challenge @ the Swahili Wikipedia:

Nearly all of them are gone now and left a lot of articles which often are not really state of the art formally and also linguistically … they don’t care because they were there for laptops and other prizes (no need to be rude, but it hurts me pretty bad).

An article in New York Times is similarly not exalted. The last paragraphs of the article comments on Google-generated content in Wikipedias in languages of India.

However, the surge in content created by Google’s project to improve these sites still needs work, according some local site administrators. For example the Wikipedia in Tamil – one of the underrepresented South Asian languages – the entries covered “too many American pop stars and Hindi movies, which Tamils may not need as a priority.” There was also sloppiness in language and coding.

Despite these concerns, Tamil Wikipedia plans on working with Google to continue the additions. The Bengali Wikipedia, however, took greater umbrage and simply deleted the Google-generated content. The Bengali Wikipedians explained that the material simply did not meet their standards.

The Health Speaks Wikipedia pilot project was announced yesterday and is focused on increasing the quantity and quality of online health information in languages spoken in developing countries. They started a pilot project to support community-based, crowd-sourced translation of health information from English Wikipedias into Arabic, Hindi and Swahili Wikipedias.
They have chosen hundreds of good quality English language health articles from Wikipedia that they hope will be translated with the assistance of Google Translator Toolkit, made locally relevant, reviewed and then published to the corresponding local language Wikipedia site. They have also funded the professional translation of a small subset of these articles. And they are additionally providing a donation incentive to encourage community translators to participate. For the first 60 days, they will donate 3 cents (US) for each English word translated to the Children’s Cancer Hospital Egypt 57357, the Public Health Foundation of India and the African Medical and Research Foundation (AMREF) for the pilots in Arabic, Hindi and Swahili, respectively, up to $50,000 each. This means that community translators will help their friends and neighbors access quality health information in a local language, while also supporting a local non-profit organization working in health or health education.

Scientists and online dating

Interesting BostonGlobe article “Data mining the heart. What scientists are learning from online dating”.

As dating interactions have moved from the privacy of bars and social gatherings to the digital world of websites and e-mails, they are generating an unprecedented trove of data about how the initial phases of romance unfold. Most research is done on OkCupid, that now publishes a blog, OKTrends, that delves into its database of more than 1 million users to analyze their interactions.

Some findings reported in the article:

Men get more responses from women if they don’t smile in their profile pictures, and women find most men below average in attractiveness — but write to them anyway.

A man needs to make several extra tens of thousands of dollars to compensate for being an inch shorter, and that race matters more than people admit.

The company found that while men rate women’s attractiveness in an even curve — most women being average — two-thirds of men’s messages go to the best-looking third of the women. Women, on the other hand, are more harsh on men, rating the majority as below average, but are more likely than men to send messages to people they don’t find attractive.

In their online profiles, for instance, all users add an average of two inches to their height and a 20 percent raise in salary.

The data debunk some dating myths. In analyzing 7,000 user photos, the company found that women get more male attention when they flirt into the camera or smile, while men, surprisingly, did better when they looked away from the camera and didn’t smile. Even more surprising, not showing their face in their photos didn’t affect the number of messages users received.

Fun is the easiest way to change people’s behaviour for the better

Can you convince people to recycle glass bottles? To take the stairs instead of the escalator? To throw rubbish in the bin instead of onto the floor?
It seems so … How? With FUN!
The fun theory, a (clever) initiative by Volkswagen.

Putting bottles in the bin becomes a game …

Walking on the stairs … and play piano…

Throw rubbish in the bin and … so deeeep?

74 Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia

While reading “Can History be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past” (review soon!) by Roy Rosenzweig, founder and ex-director of the Center for History and New Media (which also created Zotero and Omeka!), I got across the mention to the list of 74 Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia.
Lovely! ;)

Wikipedia power structure: Anarchy, Bureaucracy, Despotism, Democracy, Meritocracy, Plutocracy, Technocracy … and everything in between

There is an interesting essay over at meta.wikimedia about Wikipedia power structure: Wikimedia’s present power structure is a mix of anarchic, despotic, democratic, republican, meritocratic, plutocratic, technocratic, and bureaucratic elements.
Wikipedia - VeteranWow! The entire self-reflection of the Wikipedia community is amazing and the topic is very interesting.
Personally I find interesting how much these policies and ethos are created by the community (the humans) and how much they are created by the socio-technical system (the Mediawiki software). My impression is that the software influences a lot and the same community will perform very differently under different softwares: I think it is often mentioned that Wikis work because it is very easy (easier?) fix things than destroying them, but this is a feature of the software and of the buttons and functionalities (such as rollback) that the software gives to users.
Many of these points resonates in me since I read the glorious book by Lawrence Lessig Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace but now I’m in a position to test them … at least in Wikipedia! I guess I would be classified as a technocratic ;)

The essay is released under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License, so, just because I can, I copy and paste the original HTML after the jump (and most links are of course broken). Enjoy!
Continue reading

Larry Sanger on max quality of a Wikipedia article

Larry Sanger in the paper “The Fate of Expertise after Wikipedia”:

Over the long term, the quality of a given Wikipedia article will do a random walk around the highest level of quality permitted by the most persistent and aggressive people who follow an article.

Larry Sanger is co-founder of Wikipedia but left years ago. You can read the hyper-interesting account of his involvement with Wikipedia in “The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir” (part 1, part 2).

Tidbits from “The game layer on top of the world”, presentation by Seth Priebatsch at Ted.

Seth Priebatsch, Proud Princeton dropout and Chief Ninja/CEO at SCVNGR, gave a great talk at TED titled “The game layer on top of the world”.

The style is funny, amazingly refreshening and awesomely young, as you can see in the video of the presentation.
Below you can find the embedded video and some tidbits from his presentation extracted by me.

Main message:
Last decade was the decade of social. This next decade is the decade of games. We use game dynamics to build on it. We build with mindshare. We can influence behavior. It is very powerful. It is very exciting. Let’s all build it together, let’s do it well and have fun playing.

The game layer on top of the world is already under construction. But it’s filled with lots of different things that, in short, aren’t that fun.
There are credit card schemes and airline mile programs and coupon cards and all these loyalty schemes that actually do use game dynamics and actually are building the game layer, they just suck.

So the presentation is about four really important game dynamics, really interesting things, that, if you use consciously, you can use to influence behavior, both for good, for bad, for in-between. Hopefully for good.

For each dynamic, Seth gives 3 examples
a) one that shows how this is already being used in the real world,
b) one that shows it in what we consider a conventional game — I think everything is a game, this is sort of more of a what you would think is a game played on a board or on a computer screen,
c) one how this can be used for good, so we can see that these forces can really be very powerful.

1) Appointment dynamic: in which to succeed, players have to do something at a predefined time, generally at a predefined place.
1.a) Happy hour: come here at a certain time, beer is half price. To win, all you have to do is show up at the right place at the right time.
1.b) Farmville (a game inside facebook): has more active users than Twitter. You have to return at a certain time to water your crops — fake crops — or they wilt. And this is so powerful that, when they tweak their stats, when they say your crops wilt after eight hours, or after six hours, or after 24 hours, it changes the life-cycle of 70 million-some people during the day. They will return like clockwork at different times. So if they wanted the world to end, if they wanted productivity to stop, they could make this a 30-minute cycle, and no one could do anything else. (Laughter) That’s a little scary.
1.c) GlowCaps: but this could also be used for good. This is a local company called Vitality, and they’ve created a product to help people take their medicine on time. That’s an appointment. It’s something that people don’t do very well. And they have these GlowCaps which, you know, flash and email you and do all sorts of cool things to remind you to take your medicine. This is one that isn’t a game yet, but really should be. You should get points for doing this on time. You should lose points for not doing this on time. They should consciously recognize that they’ve built an appointment dynamic and leverage the games. And then you can really achieve good in some interesting ways.

2) Influence and status: the ability of one player to modify the behaviour of another’s action through social pressure.
2.a) Credit card: everybody wants the black American Express Card!
2.b) Levels in games: people work very hard to level up. For example, in World of Warcraft, the average most dedicated player spends 6 and a half hours per day! It’s like a full time job! Status is really good motivator.
2.c) School: is a game, it’s just not a terribly well-designed game. There are levels. There are C. There are B. There is A. There are statuses. Why can’t you level up in school as you do in World of Warcraft?

3) Progression dynamic: success is granularity displayed and measured through the process of completing itemized tasks
3.1) Linkedin: in many sites, for example on Linkedin, there is a bar showing how many activities (such as filling a certain profile field) you have to do before reaching 100%. If not completed, I am an un-whole individual. I am only 85 percent complete on LinkedIn, and that bothers me. And this is so deep-seated in our psyche that, when we’re presented with a progress bar and presented with easy, granular steps to take to try and complete that progress bar, we will do it. We will find a way to move that blue line. all the way to the right edge of the screen.
3.b) Online games: they use it as well, for example World of Warcraft.
3.c) SCVNGR: they use games to drive traffic and drive business to local businesses. They go places, they do challenges, they earn points. And we’ve introduced a progression dynamic into it, where, by going to the same place over and over, by doing doing challenges, by engaging with the business, you move a green bar from the left edge of the screen to the right edge of the screen, and you eventually unlock rewards. And this is powerful enough that we can see that it hooks people into these dynamics, pulls them back to the same local businesses, creates huge loyalty, creates engagement, and is able to drive meaningful revenue and fun and engagement to businesses. These progression dynamics are powerful and can be used in the real world.
I just installed SCVNGR on my iPhone and starting to use it.

4) Communal discovery: a dynamic wherein an entire community is rallied to work together to achieve something, to solve a challenge. It leverages the network that is society to solve problems.
4.1) Digg: is a communal dynamic to try to find and source the most interesting stories. Seth talks about it was a game, and the leaderboard which became a sort of cabal and was eventually shut down.
4.2) The game Monopoly
4.3) Final example is the DARPA ballon challenge: how do you mobilize people to collectively find 8 balloons flying over the entire USA territory? Well, MIT guys did it, in just 12 hours (!) leveraging on a simple wen site, simple social dynamics and incentives for social netwokr propagation!

The main message (again):
Last decade was the decade of social. This next decade is the decade of games. We use game dynamics to build on it. We build with mindshare. We can influence behavior. It is very powerful. It is very exciting. Let’s all build it together, let’s do it well and have fun playing.

(just as a note, Seth Priebatsch’s company (SCVNGR) is followed on twitter by the verified account of BarackObama. This is quite amazing and I don’t think the policy of twitteresque Obama is to reciprocate every “follow” since he has 717,027 following and 5,016,427 followers. Anyway beside this small point, I suggest you to check out the video and to think about “which incentives do you put in your site/platform for people? Could you exploit motivations at the base of games?”)

Review of “What motivates Wikipedians?” Main motivation = Fun!

Paper by Oded Nov, published on Communications of the ACM (November 2007)

A random sample of 370 Wikipedians were emailed a request to participate in a Web-based survey.
A total of 151 valid responses were received (40.8% response rate), of which 140 (92.7%) were from males (first “gosh”!).
The respondents’ mean age was 30.9, and on average they have been contributing content to Wikipedia 2.3 years.
The average level of contribution was 8.27 hours per week.

The Wikipedians were asked to state how strongly they agree or disagree on a scale of 1 to 7 with items.
Items were related to 8 different types of motivations: Protective, Values, Career, Social, Understanding, Enhancement (typical measures about volunteering motivations) and Fun, Ideology (added by authors since relevant for Wikipedia).

Overall, the top motivations were found to be Fun and Ideology. Agreement with Fun was in average 6.10 (in the range 1 to 7!). Ideology was 5.59. The other motivations were inferior to 4.

Each of the six motivations positively correlated with contribution level.

The Ideology case is particularly interesting (…): while people state that ideology is high on their list of reasons to contribute, being more ideologically motivated does not translate into increased contribution.

It would make sense for organizers of user-generated content outlets to focus marketing, recruitment, and retention efforts by highlighting the fun aspects of contributing.
Credit for image: nojhan released under Creative Commons

Review of “Taking up the mop: identifying future wikipedia administrators”

Paper by Moira Burke and Robert Kraut of Carnegie Mellon University, presented at CHI ’08, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

This paper presents a model of editors who have successfully passed the peer review process to become admins. The lightweight model is based on behavioral metadata and comments, and does not require any page text. It demonstrates that the Wikipedia community has shifted in the last two years to prioritizing policymaking and organization experience over simple article-level coordination, and mere edit count does not lead to adminship.

In short, authors compute lots of stats for every single user and then they do regression with the binary variable “election successful, i.e. X became admin”. They separate Request for Adminship pre-2006 and after-2006.

The stats they compute are:
Strong edit history
* Article edits ‡
* Months since first edit
Varied experience
* Wikipedia (policy) edits ‡
* WikiProject edits ‡
* Diversity score
* User page edits ‡
User interaction
* Article talk edits ‡
* User talk edits ‡
* Wikipedia talk edits
* Arb/mediation/wikiquette edits
* Newcomer welcomes
* “Please” in comments
* “Thanks” in comments
Helping with chores
* “Revert” in comments ‡
* Vandal-fighting (AIV) edits
* Requests for protection
* “POV” in comments
* Admin attention/noticeboard edits
* X for deletion/review edits ‡
* Minor edits (%)
Observing consensus
* Other RfAs
* Village pump
* Votes
Edit summaries / comments
* Commented (%)
* Avg. comment length (log2 chars)
Conclusions
Merely performing a lot of production work is insufficient for “promotion” in Wikipedia. Candidates’ article edits were weak predictors of success. They also have to demonstrate more managerial behavior. Diverse experience and contributions to the development of policies and Wiki Projects were stronger predictors of RfA success. This is consistent with findings that Wikipedia is a bureaucracy [1] and that coordination work has increased substantially [8][13].

However, future work is needed to examine more closely what the admins are doing. Future admins also use article talk pages and comments for coordination and negotiation more often than unsuccessful nominees, and tend to escalate disputes less often.

Although this research has shown that judges pay attention to candidates’ job-relevant behavior and especially behavior that suggests the candidate will be a good manager and not just a good worker, it is silent about whether other factors and probit regressions on the likelihood of success in a identified in the organizational literature [9]—social networks, irrelevant attributes, or strategic self- presentation.

Indeed, recent evidence that Wikipedia admins use a secret mailing list to coordinate their actions toward others suggest that sponsorship may also play a role in promotion.

Future research in Wikipedia using techniques like those in the current paper can be used to test theories in organizational behavior about criteria for promotion. An important limitation of the current model is that it does not take the quality of contribution into account. We plan to improve the model by examining measures of length, persistence, and pageviews of edits, which are already being used in more processor intensive models of existing admin behavior [7] and impact of edits [10].

Criteria for admins have changed modestly over time. Success rates were much higher (75.5%) prior to 2006, and collaboration via article talk pages helped more in the past (+15% for every 1000 article talk edits, compared to +6.3% today). The diversity score performs similarly prior to 2006 (+3.7% then, +2.8% now). However, participation in Wikipedia policy and Wiki Projects? was not predictive of adminship prior to 2006, suggesting the community as a whole is beginning to prioritize policymaking and organization experience over simple article-level coordination.

If you want to read the details, you can read the PDF of the paper.
Credit: Picture by inju released under Creative Commons.

Philosophies of Wikipedia: Inclusionists, Deletionists but also Gnomes, Fairies and Trouts

Wow, Wikipedia developed over time a set of internal editing philosophies and users can express their agreement to a certain philosophy simply by adding a specific template in their user page.
So I could extract the following pie chart from the Wikipedians by Wikipedia editing philosophy page. (Update: as HaeB says in a commento “categories are not disjoint (…) a pie chart might not be the best visualization”. A bar chart might be better…)

The main ideological dichotomy is between Inclusionists and Deletionists. Inclusionists favor keeping and amending problematic articles over deleting them, Deletionists favor removing articles that are not encyclopedic. Currently there are 1123 self-declared Inclusionists and 261 Deletionists.
As it is typical of Wikipedia, fun enters the stage and a new philosophy emerges AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD, acronym for “Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn’t Mean They Are Deletionists”. Currently this the 3rd most frequest philosophy with 434 adherents, denoting how Wikipedians likes to have fun ;)
And in fact the 6th most frequent philosophy is WikiGnome (makes useful incremental edits without clamouring for attention, works behind the scenes of a wiki, tying up little loose ends and making things run more smoothly, fixing things like typos, poor grammar, and broken links) but there are also 265 WikiFairies (beautifies Wikipedia by organizing messy articles, improving style, or adding color and graphics).

Myself, I think I’m a Darwikinist or maybe not … ;)

Below the complete table and the same pie but in 3D.
Well, there’s a lot of Philosophy(ies) in Wikipedia! ;)

 Wikipedian WikiGnomes

2543

 Inclusionist Wikipedians

1123

 Wikipedians in the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD

434

 Wikipedian WikiFairies

265

 Deletionist Wikipedians

261

 Wikipedians open to trout slapping

245

 Wikipedians against notability

228

 Eventualist Wikipedians

222

 Mergist Wikipedians

184

 Exopedianist Wikipedians

111

 Darwikinist Wikipedians

109

 Wikipedia users who oppose Flagged Revisions

94

 Structurist Wikipedians

86

 Incrementalist Wikipedians

85

 Exclusionist Wikipedians

77

 Wikipedian WikiElves

74

 Metapedianist Wikipedians

62

 Immediatist Wikipedians

53

 Wikipedia users who support Flagged Revisions

51

 Precisionist Wikipedians

39

 Delusionist Wikipedians

35

 Eguor Wikipedians

34

 Categorist Wikipedians

31

 Hyphen Luddites

19

 Redlinking Wikipedians

18

 Redirectionist Wikipedians

11

 Wikidemocratism Wikipedians

11

 Separatist Wikipedians

4

 Wikipedians open to whale squishing

3

 Transwikist Wikipedians

2

 Unsourced BLP Rescuers

2

TOTAL

6516