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! ;)
Author Archives: paolo
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.
Wow! 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 |
Tidbits from Wikipedia presentation at Wikysym by Andrew Lih “What Hath Wikipedia Wrought: Crowds Remaking the News”
The presentation (embedded below) consists of 148 slides. Below I selected few interesting ones.
Slide 42
• Wikitravel: only 5% of those who press “edit” actually save
• Wikipedia: 1/5 to 2/5
• WikiHow: 30% with guided editing
• Wikia: WYSIWYG editor >> 50%
Sources: Jack Herrick, WikiHow; Erik Zachte, Wikimedia Foundation
Slide 91:
An experiment by The Guardian on crowdsourcing journalism.
The Guardian obtained two million pages of explosive documents that outed your country’s biggest political scandal of the decade. They’ve had a team of professional journalists on the job for a month, slamming out a string of blockbuster stories as they find them in their huge stack of secrets.
How do you catch up? If you’re the Guardian of London, you wait for the associated public-records dump, shovel it all on your Web site next to a simple feedback interface and enlist more than 20,000 volunteers to help you find the needles in the haystack.
Your cost for the operation? One full week from a software developer, a few days’ help from others in his department, and £50 to rent temporary servers.
Differences in Wikipedia pages about “Vietnam War” (English vs Vietnamese)
Just a quick play: below I embedded the page about Vietnam war from English Wikipedia and the translation in English of the page about Vietnam war from Vietnamese Wikipedia. (click here to open just the page embedding the 2 pages).
Would be interesting to automatically check the differences in how different communities (in this case defined by the language) represent the same concepts.
For example the beginning of the article from the Vietnamese wikipedia (automatically translated) says: In Vietnam, newspapers still use the name of resistance against American for just this war, [9] as well as to distinguish it from other wars that happened in Vietnam when anti- French , anti- Japanese , anti- Mongolia , against China. Some people [10] feels not name the U.S. invasions of neutrality by the war also reflects elements of a civil war; [10] that some other name for the Vietnam War reflected the views of West rather than the people living in Vietnam. [10] The name of this war is still a matter of controversy. But now scholars in and outside Vietnam have gradually accepted the name “Vietnam War” because of its international nature.
from English Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org |
from Vietnamese Wikipedia (translated in English with Google) http://vi.wikipedia.org |
Wikimania 2010 Trivia Night: Smurfs and communism or Vampire pumpkins and watermelons or WP:WHAT??
At Wikimania 2010, there was a Trivia Night (see the slides).
You had to team with at most 3 other people. And you get +1 point for each right answer.
Some of the question were:
* Is this a Wikipedia article?
* [[The Smurfs and communism]]
* [[Exploding head syndrome]]
* [[Martian language]]
* [[Death from laughing]]
* [[AOL disk collecting]]
* [[Lawn mower racing]]
* [[[[Vampire pumpkins and watermelons]].
Great simple idea for warming up the conference in a light way. Should have been fun ;)