Vandalism is usually caught in a few seconds, or not Options Rating

[Eva Destruction]

It's also interesting to note that absolutely no action has been taken on any of the three articles I pointed out. This is good. Hasten the day.

It's not really going to hasten whilst you're talking about articles which have each received a grand total of 8 viewings this month (ignoring the one that Alison's just deleted), though, is it. It just proves that the speed of vandalism's capture is a factor of its impact...

Dude, I think you've just spectacularly missed Greg's point here...

[Push the button]

Dude, I think you've just spectacularly missed Greg's point here...

Dude, quite possibly, as I seem to be on a roll for that sort of thing this evening. Alternatively you may well have missed mine...dude.

[Kelly Martin]

To be fair to WP apologists, did anyone ever claim that vandalism to obscure articles is caught "within seconds"?

Usually when someone explains WP to the uninitiated, they explain that vandalism to prominent subjects such as the President of the United States are promptly reversed.

Such distinctions are not often made, and I remember that for some time the PR claim was being made that "half of all vandalism is reverted within four minutes" based on some flawed study someone did.

[John Limey]

To be fair to WP apologists, did anyone ever claim that vandalism to obscure articles is caught "within seconds"?

Usually when someone explains WP to the uninitiated, they explain that vandalism to prominent subjects such as the President of the United States are promptly reversed.

Such distinctions are not often made, and I remember that for some time the PR claim was being made that "half of all vandalism is reverted within four minutes" based on some flawed study someone did.

I believe you're thinking of this much publicized study http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~fviegas/papers/history_flow.pdf. As a matter of fact, the study itself is quite good, but it was used to support statements about how quickly vandalism is reverted that it didn't quite support. It's old, 2004 which is ancient in Wikipedia time, but it's good work.

[Trick cyclist]

Umm, Special:UnwatchedPages. There's also http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/watcher.py

Thats all very well but what if an article is on 35 watchlists and every one of them is banned or hasn't edited for a year or doesnt care about the article any more or is indeed the vandal. You could create dozens of socks just to watch articles you're vandalising to fool the Mzmcbride tool.

[John Limey]

Umm, Special:UnwatchedPages. There's also http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/watcher.py

Thats all very well but what if an article is on 35 watchlists and every one of them is banned or hasn't edited for a year or doesnt care about the article any more or is indeed the vandal. You could create dozens of socks just to watch articles you're vandalising to fool the Mzmcbride tool.

That's certainly true, but in general there's a pretty good correlation between how many people have an article on their watchlist and how many are actively watching it. It's extremely unlikely that an article on zero watchlists is being watched (it's possible that there could be some very committed person who actually checks the page history of a given article frequently, but it's unlikely). Similarly, the odds are that if 31 accounts are watching a page, at least one real person is actively watching it (yes, the situation you describe is possible, but it's unlikely). Certainly, there are many exceptions, but I suggest that there's a very strong correlation between how many watchlists an article is on and how actively it is being watched.

[Milton Roe]

Umm, Special:UnwatchedPages. There's also http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/watcher.py

As has been pointed out, the first site doesn't work, and the second doesn't provide the most interesting part of the data, which is PRECISELY how many people are watching pages which have fewer than 30 watchers.

McBride, you read WR. Why isn't that data available?? Is it a secret? It is somehow difficult to get? Is it embarrassing? What gives?

[MZMcBride]

Umm, Special:UnwatchedPages. There's also http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/watcher.py

As has been pointed out, the first site doesn't work, and the second doesn't provide the most interesting part of the data, which is PRECISELY how many people are watching pages which have fewer than 30 watchers.

McBride, you read WR. Why isn't that data available?? Is it a secret? It is somehow difficult to get? Is it embarrassing? What gives?

When I originally wrote the script, it allowed full access, regardless of the number of watchers. The Toolserver system administrators felt that this was akin to bypassing MediaWiki security (as Special:UnwatchedPages is restricted to administrators) and they disabled the script altogether. As a compromise, the 30 limit was put in place. (I'll note it wasn't my first choice for a limit and it really sucks for the smaller projects.)

That little "log in" link at the bottom refers to Toolserver/watcher, an access list that has (hackishly) been implemented into the interface to allow listed users to see the uncensored results.

I've been asked by one researcher from Harvard for a full copy of the data set, which I released to him or her privately. I have no problem releasing the data to others, assuming there's a legitimate need and the user can be reasonably trusted not to do harm with it (though I think the data is vastly overrated, personally)....

[Milton Roe]

Umm, Special:UnwatchedPages. There's also http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/watcher.py

As has been pointed out, the first site doesn't work, and the second doesn't provide the most interesting part of the data, which is PRECISELY how many people are watching pages which have fewer than 30 watchers.

McBride, you read WR. Why isn't that data available?? Is it a secret? It is somehow difficult to get? Is it embarrassing? What gives?

When I originally wrote the script, it allowed full access, regardless of the number of watchers. The Toolserver system administrators felt that this was akin to bypassing MediaWiki security (as Special:UnwatchedPages is restricted to administrators) and they disabled the script altogether. As a compromise, the 30 limit was put in place. (I'll note it wasn't my first choice for a limit and it really sucks for the smaller projects.)

That little "log in" link at the bottom refers to Toolserver/watcher, an access list that has (hackishly) been implemented into the interface to allow listed users to see the uncensored results.

I've been asked by one researcher from Harvard for a full copy of the data set, which I released to him or her privately. I have no problem releasing the data to others, assuming there's a legitimate need and the user can be reasonably trusted not to do harm with it (though I think the data is vastly overrated, personally)....

Arghh. Yes, as I suspected, it's embarrassing. Even if it was only available to administrators (to prevent vandals from having the data to target) there's a risk that the stats would get out, and there's nothing that can really be defended there, is there? I mean, even if only 1% of pages aren't watched by a single person, how is Sue or Jimbo or Godwin going to answer when some media wonk says "What about the 1% of pages nobody watches but your robots (which are stupid can can be fooled?)"

There's really no answer to that except to deflect the questioner to the subject of the pages that ARE watched.

So look, why don't you go to the foundation and say: "This is unconscionable. I propose that all unwatched BLP pages be declared orphan BLP pages, and fully protected against all editing for a week or a month grace period, while they either do, or do not, collect 5 sponsors--- and then either released to editing or else deleted entirely, depending on that."

The same with newly created non-BLP pages--- except that after some grace period, if they aren't watched by a couple of people other than their creators, they ought to be simply sprotected until they do collect the minimum number of stewards.

[MZMcBride]

Umm, Special:UnwatchedPages. There's also http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/watcher.py

As has been pointed out, the first site doesn't work, and the second doesn't provide the most interesting part of the data, which is PRECISELY how many people are watching pages which have fewer than 30 watchers.

McBride, you read WR. Why isn't that data available?? Is it a secret? It is somehow difficult to get? Is it embarrassing? What gives?

When I originally wrote the script, it allowed full access, regardless of the number of watchers. The Toolserver system administrators felt that this was akin to bypassing MediaWiki security (as Special:UnwatchedPages is restricted to administrators) and they disabled the script altogether. As a compromise, the 30 limit was put in place. (I'll note it wasn't my first choice for a limit and it really sucks for the smaller projects.)

That little "log in" link at the bottom refers to Toolserver/watcher, an access list that has (hackishly) been implemented into the interface to allow listed users to see the uncensored results.

I've been asked by one researcher from Harvard for a full copy of the data set, which I released to him or her privately. I have no problem releasing the data to others, assuming there's a legitimate need and the user can be reasonably trusted not to do harm with it (though I think the data is vastly overrated, personally)....

Arghh. Yes, as I suspected, it's embarrassing. Even if it was only available to administrators (to prevent vandals from having the data to target) there's a risk that the stats would get out, and there's nothing that can really be defended there, is there? I mean, even if only 1% of pages aren't watched by a single person, how is Sue or Jimbo or Godwin going to answer when some media wonk says "What about the 1% of pages nobody watches but your robots (which are stupid can can be fooled?)"

There's really no answer to that except to deflect the questioner to the subject of the pages that ARE watched.

So look, why don't you go to the foundation and say: "This is unconscionable. I propose that all unwatched BLP pages be declared orphan BLP pages, and fully protected against all editing for a week or a month grace period, while they either do, or do not, collect 5 sponsors--- and then either released to editing or else deleted entirely, depending on that."

The same with newly created non-BLP pages--- except that after some grace period, if they aren't watched by a couple of people other than their creators, they ought to be simply sprotected until they do collect the minimum number of stewards.

You do remember I gave you stats specific to biographies, right? http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/milton-watchers.txt (data from October 29, 2009, I think)

Someone recently proposed doing what you've suggested, though the overrated-ness of the data becomes more apparent when you consider that you can't tell if the user watching a page is active and checking their watchlist every 20 minutes or... dead. Or a bot. Or hasn't figured out (or never will figure out) what a watchlist because they just started a biography one day while they were bored.

All of this isn't to say that writing such a feature into MediaWiki is impossible. But, y'know, FlaggedRevs needs more development work. Or something. So that would leave people trying to use the available data, and they'd end up just making a mess based on weak (or bogus) conclusions.

The current data is useful for satisfying that "huh, I wonder how many people watch my talk page" feeling, but the overall utility right now (without being able to see the user ID column) is pretty limited.

The proposal, for reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=..._inactive_users

[Milton Roe]

You do remember I gave you stats specific to biographies, right? http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/milton-watchers.txt (data from October 29, 2009, I think)

Uh, somehow I never saw that. Good heavens, so 56,000 BLPs are on nobody's watch list? That's 14% of them. And twice that many are on only one person's list, which means 40% of BLPs have one person or nobody caring for them.

Who's the one guy on 3400 watchlists, twice as many as everybody else? W Bush? Obama?

Someone recently proposed doing what you've suggested, though the overrated-ness of the data becomes more apparent when you consider that you can't tell if the user watching a page is active and checking their watchlist every 20 minutes or... dead. Or a bot. Or hasn't figured out (or never will figure out) what a watchlist because they just started a biography one day while they were bored.

But that doesn't mean the data is overrated-- merely that the situation is (at best) worse than you describe, for your tool gives a best-possible scenario. We still know that nobody is watching articles on NOBODY's watchlists, right? What we don't know (as you point out) is if articles on a few watchlists are watched at all, because we don't know if those (few) users are active. But AT LEAST 14% of BLPs are orphans. I don't know how that happens. Presumably it happens if the user takes a bio he created off his own list, but how else? If the user deletes their account I suppose all the watched articles on that account decrease by one-watcher count, right?

Wikipedia really needs a way to delete accounts which haven't been used in 6 months or a year or something, so these stats mean something. Yes, I looked as your more moderate suggestion that we don't count them for watchlist stat purposes, and I see you couldn't even get that through, so SNOBALL on what follows.

But keeping "inactive users" as active accounts IN ANY SENSE only inflates "membership figures". It sounds like something a religious or charitable organization would do, but it's not very helpful for Wikipedia. But yes, you won't be able to reach consensus to change a thing.

The current data is useful for satisfying that "huh, I wonder how many people watch my talk page" feeling, but the overall utility right now (without being able to see the user ID column) is pretty limited.

The proposal, for reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=..._inactive_users

Oh. My. God.

That proposal should be read simply as a example why nobody thinks "the community" is capable of deciding ANYTHING on Wikipedia. What idiots. What obstructionists. What dunderheaded reactionaries.

[EricBarbour]

The proposal, for reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=..._inactive_users

Oh. My. God.
That proposal should be read simply as a example why nobody thinks "the community" is capable of deciding ANYTHING on Wikipedia. What idiots. What obstructionists. What dunderheaded reactionaries.

What Wikipedians.

(Come on, did you really think they would do something "reformist"?)

[The Joy]

So if I don't edit within 30 days, my watchlist will be deleted?

This is the end of the wiki-gnome and the vast majority of Wikipedians. Only the elite Metapedians will be able to edit Wikipedia and everyone else will be shoved out. Mark my words!

[MZMcBride]

Who's the one guy on 3400 watchlists, twice as many as everybody else? W Bush? Obama?

Looking at Wikipedia:Database reports/Most-watched pages (sort by the "ID" column), you can see that it's Richard Evans (British author), Barack Obama, and George W. Bush at 3441, 1899, and 1891 respectively. Evans appears to be some sort of database corruption; two entries from the page's history:

(cur) (prev) 13:56, 15 August 2007 Brion VIBBER (talk | contribs | block) (3,178 bytes) (revert to recovered version) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 13:55, 15 August 2007 Brion VIBBER (talk | contribs | block) (24 bytes) (←Created page with '(restoring from cleanup)') (undo)

And, yes, the stats are depressing. If you look at pages with fewer than four watchers, it's about 295,000 biographies, or nearly 70% of all biographies of living people total.

[thekohser]

Who's the one guy on 3400 watchlists, twice as many as everybody else? W Bush? Obama?

Looking at Wikipedia:Database reports/Most-watched pages (sort by the "ID" column), you can see that it's Richard Evans (British author), Barack Obama, and George W. Bush at 3441, 1899, and 1891 respectively. Evans appears to be some sort of database corruption; two entries from the page's history:

(cur) (prev) 13:56, 15 August 2007 Brion VIBBER (talk | contribs | block) (3,178 bytes) (revert to recovered version) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 13:55, 15 August 2007 Brion VIBBER (talk | contribs | block) (24 bytes) (←Created page with '(restoring from cleanup)') (undo)

And, yes, the stats are depressing. If you look at pages with fewer than four watchers, it's about 295,000 biographies, or nearly 70% of all biographies of living people total.

This just got posted on Akahele.org. If you think it's an important new fact about Wikipedia's carelessness, please Digg it.

That is sick.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Thu 7th January 2010, 4:25pm

[thekohser]

While it's not likely vandalism, just a copy-paste issue in the infobox from the get go...

Michael Russell (tennis) indicates that this guy is a six-time Grand Slam champion. Wikipedia's had it that way for just about three years now!

I estimate that the article's been viewed about 14,000 times over that span, and nobody's bothered to fix it. That would be too hard! Those infoboxes are kind of pesky to correct.

[MZMcBride]

While it's not likely vandalism, just a copy-paste issue in the infobox from the get go...

Michael Russell (tennis) indicates that this guy is a six-time Grand Slam champion. Wikipedia's had it that way for just about three years now!

I estimate that the article's been viewed about 14,000 times over that span, and nobody's bothered to fix it. That would be too hard! Those infoboxes are kind of pesky to correct.

How do you come across errors like this?

[tarantino]

These 3 steps do the trick.

1. Special:Random
2. Read article
3. Check implausible claims using a reliable source.

[carbuncle]

These 3 steps do the trick.

1. Special:Random
2. Read article
3. Check implausible claims using a reliable source.

I think in this case the steps probably go like this:

1. Find that some misguided individual is calling your website communist
2. Look up said individual's name in WP
3. Check implausible claims using a reliable source.

[Milton Roe]

These 3 steps do the trick.

1. Special:Random
2. Read article
3. Check implausible claims using a reliable source.

Bummer. Can you do 100 BLPs a day, 365 days a year? Then it will only take you 11 years. By which you'll have to start over, to say the least. Not to mention that the category will have taken WP over like Kudzu by then (all else being equal and with no changes in present trends).

I haven't heard form Mr. McBride since we noted that his stats show that AT LEAST 56,000 BLPs must be completely unwatched, and surely more.

I think some adventurous person needs to put this on WP:VP and Jimbo's talk page, just to see what kind of completely idiotic and/or childish reaction you get. No, I don't expect any changes to result. This is just for shits and giggles.