Submissions:2014/Measuring Editor Collaborativeness With Economic Modelling

From WikiConference North America
Revision as of 21:10, 20 March 2014 by Maximilianklein (talk | contribs) (Created page with "<!-- Simply provide information about your submission below and save the page. --> ;Title of the submission: Measuring Editor Collaborativeness With Economic Modelling ;Them...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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

[[1]]

Abstract (at least 300 words to describe your proposal)

How well Editors work together has been a key question since the inception of the encyclopedia. When we also consider the twin question - how artilces improve depending on who edits them - our problem becomes similiar to the Macroeconomics Field which considers the performance of Countries and Products. Borrowing from new developments in Macroeconomics, we borrow techinques which score Editors by the quality of their edited-articles portfolio, and score Articles by the quality of their contributing editor portfolio. The method is a two node-type version of the Google pageRank algorithm. Then we also establish the "groundtruth" of editor investment and article development. For editors our groundtruth is "Labour Hours", which is derived from the editors contribution history. For articles our groundtruth is a mix 5 measures of articles text (citations per sentence, number of images, etc.)

We tune two variables in the modelm called α and β, which provide a direct measure of the nonlinear ”importance” of the number of highly developed articles, and the nonlinear importance of highly invested editors, respectively. Both α and β are optimized to maximize the rank correlations of editors (0.46 < ρ e < 0.75) and articles (0.58 < ρ a < 0.91) between the algorithm and ground-truth metrics obtained by state-of-the-art quality metrics of editors. We find the correllations for 12 categories on Wikipedia. We find that the best value for α is 0, while β varies.

We find telling extremes. The best editors in Category:Military history of the US - a category known for being very competitive - are characterized by emphasizing investment (number of articles edited 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 divesting in touching many articles in the category.


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)

Wiki econ stats.png

Category-Feminist writerstriangle matrix corrected.png

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. Add your username here.