Difference between revisions of "Submissions:2014/Measuring Editor Collaborativeness With Economic Modelling"

From WikiConference North America
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 27: Line 27:
   
 
;Abstract ''(at least 300 words to describe your proposal)'':
  
;Abstract ''(at least 300 words to describe your proposal)'':
−
Even though Wikipedia is a vanguard of collaboration, Wikipedians still remain stuck with the old-thinking individual user performance metrics - most notably “Edit Count”. The search, for describing a group of editors has started through the Foundation's WikiMetrics cohort notion <ref>Wikimetrics. [http://metrics.wmflabs.org/] </ref>, hasn't answered “how” a set of users works together.
 +
Even though Wikipedia is a vanguard of collaboration, Wikipedians unfortunately have access to few tools for performance metrics - most notably “Edit Count”. The Wikimedia Foundation's WikiMetrics cohort notion <ref>Wikimetrics. [http://metrics.wmflabs.org/] </ref> has begun the search for higher-level metrics, but hasn't yet answered “how” users work together.
   
−
A recent stream of research in Macroeconomics has shown simple techniques for predicting GDP with very little information <ref>Hidalgo, Hausmann, The Building Blocks of Economic Complexity [http://chidalgo.com/Papers/HidalgoHausmann_PNAS_2009.pdf] </ref> <ref>Caldarelli et al. Firm Grounds. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23094044] </ref>, which can be translated into the wiki realm. Using only the data of which countries export which products (not even how much of each product), one can quickly predict GDP rankings. Here we repurpose the algorithm, so that Editors are countries, articles are products, and GDP is “Labour Hours” (an edit count derivative <ref>Halfaker, Geiger, Using Edit Sessions [http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/Using_Edit_Sessions_to_Measure_Participation_in_Wikipedia/geiger13using-preprint.pdf]</ref>) .
+
This presentation will outline new methods for measuring and understanding editor collaborativeness. Borrowing from Economic modelling, new insights on economic competitiveness make the analog of editor collaborativeness possible. A recent stream of research in Macroeconomics has shown simple techniques for predicting GDP with very little information <ref>Hidalgo, Hausmann, The Building Blocks of Economic Complexity [http://chidalgo.com/Papers/HidalgoHausmann_PNAS_2009.pdf] </ref> <ref>Caldarelli et al. Firm Grounds. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23094044] </ref>, which can be translated into the wiki realm. Using only the data of which countries export which products (not even how much of each product), one can quickly predict GDP rankings. Here we re-purpose the algorithm, so that Editors are countries, articles are products, and GDP is “Total Labour Hours” (an edit count derivative <ref>Halfaker, Geiger, Using Edit Sessions [http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/Using_Edit_Sessions_to_Measure_Participation_in_Wikipedia/geiger13using-preprint.pdf]</ref>).
   
−
This method comes only from considering a matrix of which editors have touched which articles – producing an entirely new perspective on Wikipedia (see Figure below). The simplicity of this model can help us to quickly and easily determine which areas are more likely to be hostile and power-user dominated, and which are more egaliterean an collaborative.
 +
By constructing a relation between editors and the articles they have touched, we are able to produce an entirely new perspective on Wikipedia (see the Figure below). The simplicity of this model can help us to quickly and easily determine which categories of articles are more likely to be hostile and power-user dominated, and which are more egalitarian and collaborative.
   
−
Incredibly, this borrowed method works even better for Wikis than Economies. Where the maximum achievable correlation in Macroeconomics is about 0.42, we can achieve correlations of upto 0.91. But the real innovation comes from, two factors which are tweaked to optimize the model. These two variables are: the ''importance'' of the high quality articles in an editor's contribution portfolio, and conversely the “importance” of highly invested editors in an article's contribution history. These variables can range independently, and tell us about “collaborativeness”.
 +
Incredibly, this borrowed method works even better for Wikis than Economies. Where the maximum achievable correlation in Macroeconomics is about 0.42, we can achieve correlations of up to 0.91. However, the real innovation comes from two factors which are tweaked to optimize the model:
  +
  +
* ''importance'' of the high quality articles in an editor's contribution portfolio
  +
* (conversely) the ''importance'' of highly-invested editors in an article's contribution history.
  +
  +
These variables can range independently, and characterize our notion of "collaborativeness".
  +
  +
Collaborativeness is determined from the edit patterns of editors. Do they edit many articles? How well developed are the articles they edit? Consider these telling extremes:
  +
  +
* The best editors in ''Category:Military history of the US''&mdash;a category known for being very competitive&mdash;are characterized by emphasizing investment in touching many articles in the category. Less collaborative.
  +
* On the other end, the editors in ''Category:Sexual acts''&mdash;a taboo subject where much editing could be considered perverse&mdash;are characterized by not touching many articles in the category. More collaborative.
  +
  +
We hope to receive critique on whether our algorithmic notion of ''collaborativeness'' is inline with community opinion. Additionally we hope to receive requests for different datasets to analyze for future research.
   
−
Collaborativeness is determined from the edit patterns of the most highly invested editors. Do they edit many articles? And how well developed are the articles they edit? Consider these telling extremes. The best editors in ''Category:Military history of the US'' - a category known for being very competitive - are characterized by emphasizing investment in touching many articles in the category. On the other end, the editors in ''Category:Sexual acts'' - a taboo subject where much editing could be considered perverse - are characterized by not touching many articles in the category, more collaborative.
  
 
== References ==
 
== References ==
 
<references />
  
<references />
Line 62: Line 73:
 
'''If you are interested in attending this session, please sign with your username below. This will help reviewers to decide which sessions are of high interest. Sign with four tildes. (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>).'''
  
'''If you are interested in attending this session, please sign with your username below. This will help reviewers to decide which sessions are of high interest. Sign with four tildes. (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>).'''
   
  +
# [[User:Rhododendrites|Rhododendrites]] ([[User talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]) 09:52, 10 April 2014 (EDT)
  +
# [[User:Geraldshields11|Geraldshields11]] ([[User talk:Geraldshields11|talk]]) 08:52, 27 May 2014 (EDT)
 
# ''Add your username here.''
  
# ''Add your username here.''
   
−
[[Category:Submissions]]
 +
[[Category:Submissions/2014‎]]

Latest revision as of 01:13, 31 August 2016

Title of the submission

Measuring Editor Collaborativeness With Economic Modelling

Themes (Proposal Themes - Community, Tech, Outreach, GLAM, Education)

Community - presents a way to characterise editors.

Type of submission (Presentation Types - Panel, Workshop, Presentation, etc)

Presentation

Author of the submission

Max Klein

E-mail address

isalix@gmail.com

Username

w:User:Maximilianklein

US state or country of origin

California

Affiliation, if any (organization, company etc.)
Personal homepage or blog

[5]

Abstract (at least 300 words to describe your proposal)

Even though Wikipedia is a vanguard of collaboration, Wikipedians unfortunately have access to few tools for performance metrics - most notably “Edit Count”. The Wikimedia Foundation's WikiMetrics cohort notion [1] has begun the search for higher-level metrics, but hasn't yet answered “how” users work together.

This presentation will outline new methods for measuring and understanding editor collaborativeness. Borrowing from Economic modelling, new insights on economic competitiveness make the analog of editor collaborativeness possible. A recent stream of research in Macroeconomics has shown simple techniques for predicting GDP with very little information [2] [3], which can be translated into the wiki realm. Using only the data of which countries export which products (not even how much of each product), one can quickly predict GDP rankings. Here we re-purpose the algorithm, so that Editors are countries, articles are products, and GDP is “Total Labour Hours” (an edit count derivative [4]).

By constructing a relation between editors and the articles they have touched, we are able to produce an entirely new perspective on Wikipedia (see the Figure below). The simplicity of this model can help us to quickly and easily determine which categories of articles are more likely to be hostile and power-user dominated, and which are more egalitarian and collaborative.

Incredibly, this borrowed method works even better for Wikis than Economies. Where the maximum achievable correlation in Macroeconomics is about 0.42, we can achieve correlations of up to 0.91. However, the real innovation comes from two factors which are tweaked to optimize the model:

  • importance of the high quality articles in an editor's contribution portfolio
  • (conversely) the importance of highly-invested editors in an article's contribution history.

These variables can range independently, and characterize our notion of "collaborativeness".

Collaborativeness is determined from the edit patterns of editors. Do they edit many articles? How well developed are the articles they edit? Consider these telling extremes:

  • The best editors in Category:Military history of the US—a category known for being very competitive—are characterized by emphasizing investment in touching many articles in the category. Less collaborative.
  • On the other end, the editors in Category:Sexual acts—a taboo subject where much editing could be considered perverse—are characterized by not touching many articles in the category. More collaborative.

We hope to receive critique on whether our algorithmic notion of collaborativeness is inline with community opinion. Additionally we hope to receive requests for different datasets to analyze for future research.

References

  1. ↑ Wikimetrics. [1]
  2. ↑ Hidalgo, Hausmann, The Building Blocks of Economic Complexity [2]
  3. ↑ Caldarelli et al. Firm Grounds. [3]
  4. ↑ Halfaker, Geiger, Using Edit Sessions [4]


Length of presentation/talk (see Presentation Types for lengths of different presentation types)
75 Minutes

Preferred 30 mins to fit into a thematic session, but could talk longer.

Will you attend WikiConference USA if your submission is not accepted?

Yes, I if receive a travel scholarship as well.

Slides or further information (optional)

A triangular matrix from Wikipedia data

A rendering of a latex table

Special request as to time of presentations


Interested attendees

If you are interested in attending this session, please sign with your username below. This will help reviewers to decide which sessions are of high interest. Sign with four tildes. (~~~~).

  1. Rhododendrites (talk) 09:52, 10 April 2014 (EDT)
  2. Geraldshields11 (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2014 (EDT)
  3. Add your username here.
Retrieved from "https://wikiconference.org/index.php?title=Submissions:2014/Measuring_Editor_Collaborativeness_With_Economic_Modelling&oldid=5040"