Dynamics of Edit War Sequences in Wikipedia

Chhabra, Anamika; Kaur, Ramneek; Iyengar, S. R. S.

doi:10.1145/3412569.3412585

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…None represents approximately 10,00% of the properties without property scope constraint. 5 We observe that only 363 properties have a required qualifier constraint specification, and 761 have a allowed qualifier constraint specification, representing respectively 3,60% and 7,50% among 10,089 properties. Figures 7 and 8 present the distribution for both predicates and qualifiers for the top 50 most frequent ones.…”

Section: Dataset Statisticsmentioning

confidence: 77%

“…Following the dictionary definitions of controversy given previously, one can rephrase them, for our purposes, as an incongruence that also involves a discussion and disagreement among authors of the statements involved, possibly over an extended period. For crowdsourced online resources such as WD and Wikipedia, a controversy is manifested through the talk pages associated with an entry, as well as by patterns in their edit history (see [5,20,21,29]). Such analysis is outside the scope of this paper and is left for future work; in this respect, we will focus on incomplete and incongruent content in WD.…”

Section: Methodology -Why and How To Identify Wd Incongruences?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1a6cUI1UEWRTNbvqtLAfJU0wEJ4ssTqdz?usp=share_link5 All data collected, statistics, scripts, and queries used for conducting this research can be found in https://github.com/versant2612/WD-Profiling 6. Accumulated Frequency, in all tables, is the sum of the previously reported frequency 7.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Can you trust Wikidata?

Santos,

Schwabe,

Lifschitz

2024

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to use a value retrieved from a Knowledge Graph (KG) for some computation, the user should, in principle, ensure that s/he trusts the veracity of the claim, i.e., considers the statement as a fact. Crowd-sourced KGs, or KGs constructed by integrating several different information sources of varying quality, must be used via a trust layer. The veracity of each claim in the underlying KG should be evaluated, considering what is relevant to carrying out some action that motivates the information seeking. The present work aims to assess how well Wikidata (WD) supports the trust decision process implied when using its data. WD provides several mechanisms that can support this trust decision, and our KG Profiling, based on WD claims and schema, elaborates an analysis of how multiple points of view, controversies, and potentially incomplete or incongruent content are presented and represented.

show abstract

Section: Dataset Statisticsmentioning

confidence: 77%

Section: Methodology -Why and How To Identify Wd Incongruences?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Can you trust Wikidata?

Santos,

Schwabe,

Lifschitz

2024

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Conflict on Wikipedia has already been a subject of numerous studies, with particular attention given to so-called “edit wars” ( 11 , 29 , 30 ). These arise when groups of editors, disagreeing about page content, repeatedly override each other’s contributions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toxic comments are associated with reduced activity of volunteer editors on Wikipedia

Smirnov,

Oprea,

Strohmaier

2023

PNAS Nexus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wikipedia is one of the most successful collaborative projects in history. It is the largest encyclopedia ever created, with millions of users worldwide relying on it as the first source of information as well as for fact-checking and in-depth research. As Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of its volunteer editors, its success might be particularly affected by toxic speech. In this paper, we analyze all 57 million comments made on user talk pages of 8.5 million editors across the six most active language editions of Wikipedia to study the potential impact of toxicity on editors’ behavior. We find that toxic comments are consistently associated with reduced activity of editors, equivalent to 0.5–2 active days per user in the short term. This translates to multiple human-years of lost productivity, considering the number of active contributors to Wikipedia. The effects of toxic comments are potentially even greater in the long term, as they are associated with a significantly increased risk of editors leaving the project altogether. Using an agent-based model, we demonstrate that toxicity attacks on Wikipedia have the potential to impede the progress of the entire project. Our results underscore the importance of mitigating toxic speech on collaborative platforms such as Wikipedia to ensure their continued success.

show abstract

“…Além do ritmo acelerado de edições, tais guerras tendem a ser caracterizadas não por revisões substanciais do conteúdo de um artigo, mas por inclusões, exclusões e reversões contínuas de determinado detalhe que incomoda pessoalmente um número limitado de editores (Chhabra;Kaur;Yvengar, 2020;Yasseri et al, 2012). Assim como a narrativa etnográfica acima apresentou uma guerra de edição que se arrastou por pouco mais de dois meses entre Chidgk1 e Moxy em torno de uma referência bibliográfica, esse artigo foi palco de outras controvérsias análogas ao longo do ano.…”

Section: Conflitos Textuais: As Guerras De Ediçãounclassified

Liberdade na enciclopédia livre: entre culturas colaborativas e participação tecnoliberal na Wikipédia

Fians

2024

Horiz. antropol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enquanto o mundo acompanhava em tempo real o início da guerra russo-ucraniana em 2022, o artigo sobre a Rússia na Wikipédia de língua inglesa era invadido por edições disruptivas a favor e contra Putin. Tomando essa guerra de edição como ponto de partida, este artigo pergunta: como liberdade, colaboração e conflito se articulam na tentativa de se catalogar o conhecimento humano online, e até que ponto a produção textual coletiva subverte a noção de autoria individual? Ao examinar etnograficamente as tensões entre as culturas colaborativas e a participação tecnoliberal que regem a produção de conteúdos online, sugiro elementos para repensarmos os múltiplos significados de liberdade, colaboração e autoria vigentes em projetos de cunho digital.Nesse sentido, enquanto a Wikipédia emerge como uma solução para o problema neoliberal da circulação restrita do conhecimento, argumento que seu caráter coletivo é legitimado não pelo apagamento do indivíduo, mas pela exaltação do individualismo expressivo.

show abstract

Dynamics of Edit War Sequences in Wikipedia

Cited by 11 publications

References 29 publications

Can you trust Wikidata?

Can you trust Wikidata?

Toxic comments are associated with reduced activity of volunteer editors on Wikipedia

Liberdade na enciclopédia livre: entre culturas colaborativas e participação tecnoliberal na Wikipédia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About