Content contributors, statistical analysis Options

[dogbiscuit]

A message to me from a Wikipedian.

I wish you all the best, and look forward to the book, but hope you realise you have a blind spot, and that you do not bend the statistic you gather to reinforce what you already beieve. I think you are a good guy, have always though that, but you've been through the wars here, dont let it affect your critical distance as it will inevitably be used against you. Feel free to talk to me anytime, I have the same facination. Youd be surprised how many of us think similar to you, but more critically and with more self awareness. Still, best. Ceoil (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

OK I need to develop this ‘critical awareness’ about Wikipedia. Can anyone help me here?

He is simply saying that you are biased by your experiences (or at minimum are seen as biased by your experiences) and you need to see that.

That you have a number of hypotheses about Wikipedia that can be construed as anti-project is probably fair comment; whether your experiences have made you uncritical and you cannot see that in yourself I wouldn't care to judge.

[communicat]

A message to me from a Wikipedian.

I wish you all the best, and look forward to the book, but hope you realise you have a blind spot, and that you do not bend the statistic you gather to reinforce what you already beieve. I think you are a good guy, have always though that, but you've been through the wars here, dont let it affect your critical distance as it will inevitably be used against you. Feel free to talk to me anytime, I have the same facination. Youd be surprised how many of us think similar to you, but more critically and with more self awareness. Still, best. Ceoil (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

OK I need to develop this ‘critical awareness’ about Wikipedia. Can anyone help me here?

Maybe try critical awareness of Mark Twain's famous quote: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics". ?

[thekohser]

Try this, Peter. Say five nice things about Wikipedia, and say them like you mean them. We can then see if you have the ability to objectively evaluate that cess pit.

[communicat]

A message to me from a Wikipedian.

I wish you all the best, and look forward to the book, but hope you realise you have a blind spot, and that you do not bend the statistic you gather to reinforce what you already beieve. I think you are a good guy, have always though that, but you've been through the wars here, dont let it affect your critical distance as it will inevitably be used against you. Feel free to talk to me anytime, I have the same facination. Youd be surprised how many of us think similar to you, but more critically and with more self awareness. Still, best. Ceoil (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

OK I need to develop this ‘critical awareness’ about Wikipedia. Can anyone help me here?

By "critical awareness", he/she may be referring to an analysis that draws from knowledge across the social sciences and humanities -- not one that appears presently to be relying exclusively a quantitative analytical approach, (both in this topic as in its current fork marked "Content contributors").

I agree with Ceoil that you (and others in the discussions) may be striving to support with statistical evidence a hypothesis that you have already, prematurely formed; and thus provide your pre-selected hypothesis with a veneer of empirical respectability. As the discussions show, there are just too many variables involved for any convincing objective, quantitative "proof" to emerge. Forget about the maths and the empiricism and the "logic"; try a qualitative approach, which allows for a measure of subjectivity.

[Malleus]

A message to me from a Wikipedian.

I wish you all the best, and look forward to the book, but hope you realise you have a blind spot, and that you do not bend the statistic you gather to reinforce what you already beieve. I think you are a good guy, have always though that, but you've been through the wars here, dont let it affect your critical distance as it will inevitably be used against you. Feel free to talk to me anytime, I have the same facination. Youd be surprised how many of us think similar to you, but more critically and with more self awareness. Still, best. Ceoil (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

OK I need to develop this ‘critical awareness’ about Wikipedia. Can anyone help me here?

By "critical awareness", he/she may be referring to an analysis that draws from knowledge across the social sciences and humanities -- not one that appears presently to be relying exclusively a quantitative analytical approach, (both in this topic as in its current fork marked "Content contributors").

I agree with Ceoil that you (and others in the discussions) may be striving to support with statistical evidence a hypothesis that you have already, prematurely formed; and thus provide your pre-selected hypothesis with a veneer of empirical respectability. As the discussions show, there are just too many variables involved for any convincing objective, quantitative "proof" to emerge. Forget about the maths and the empiricism and the "logic"; try a qualitative approach, which allows for a measure of subjectivity.

I think that demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method, perhaps one that Peter shares. The point of a hypothesis is to state it in such a way that it is susceptible to empirical investigation designed to disprove it, not to prove it. And to suggest that a qualitative approach may be more objective than a quantitative one is just risible.

[Peter Damian]

I agree with Ceoil that you (and others in the discussions) may be striving to support with statistical evidence a hypothesis that you have already, prematurely formed; and thus provide your pre-selected hypothesis with a veneer of empirical respectability. As the discussions show, there are just too many variables involved for any convincing objective, quantitative "proof" to emerge. Forget about the maths and the empiricism and the "logic"; try a qualitative approach, which allows for a measure of subjectivity.

I suspect you are an idiot. Can you please read carefully the original post http://ocham.blogspot.com/2011/10/repetiti...-wikipedia.html and please tell me whether I was advancing or proving any hypothesis, and if so, what hypothesis you think I was advancing or trying to prove?

Please note the bit in the post that says "before you leap to conclusions".

[edit] Think also of this limiting case. I write an entire new article off-wiki, and then save it onto Wikipedia, links and all, and I never return to that article. I then write another article off-wiki and save that into Wikipedia. Repeat another 98 times. Thus I have written 100 complete articles, of the sort that would normally require 1,000’s of edits. Yet my average epp = 1, exactly. I was suggesting that we shouldn’t leap to the natural conclusion that low epp = low value, or not ‘content creator’ or anything like that.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 31st October 2011, 6:19pm

[thekohser]

I suspect you are an idiot.

None of my experiments involving Communicat have been able to disprove that hypothesis, Peter.

[radek]

I agree with Ceoil that you (and others in the discussions) may be striving to support with statistical evidence a hypothesis that you have already, prematurely formed; and thus provide your pre-selected hypothesis with a veneer of empirical respectability. As the discussions show, there are just too many variables involved for any convincing objective, quantitative "proof" to emerge. Forget about the maths and the empiricism and the "logic"; try a qualitative approach, which allows for a measure of subjectivity.

I suspect you are an idiot. Can you please read carefully the original post http://ocham.blogspot.com/2011/10/repetiti...-wikipedia.html and please tell me whether I was advancing or proving any hypothesis, and if so, what hypothesis you think I was advancing or trying to prove?

Please note the bit in the post that says "before you leap to conclusions".

[edit] Think also of this limiting case. I write an entire new article off-wiki, and then save it onto Wikipedia, links and all, and I never return to that article. I then write another article off-wiki and save that into Wikipedia. Repeat another 98 times. Thus I have written 100 complete articles, of the sort that would normally require 1,000’s of edits. Yet my average epp = 1, exactly. I was suggesting that we shouldn’t leap to the natural conclusion that low epp = low value, or not ‘content creator’ or anything like that.

That's right, I'm the one who went ahead and made that leap for you (with caveats and stuff)

[Ottava]

One of the things I noticed is that even if you narrow down who are content contributors, you still have a lot of problematic contributors.

Take this for example. The guy altered many cited statements and made them 100% opposite of what the source says. The guy then adds a lot of blatant original research contradicted by other parts of the page that are cited. This is a highly read page and though he was reverted twice with people pointing out that he was adding original research, he is still allowed to continue it and his additions are now the current version of the page.

These people are rampant.

[EricBarbour]

url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kubla_Khan&diff=458271697&oldid=454934213]Take this for example[/url]. The guy altered many cited statements and made them 100% opposite of what the source says. The guy then adds a lot of blatant original research contradicted by other parts of the page that are cited. This is a highly read page and though he was reverted twice with people pointing out that he was adding original research, he is still allowed to continue it and his additions are now the current version of the page.

These people are rampant.

Those are "subtle vandals". I think there might be a few hundred of them, usually sticking to
certain areas (like the guy who uses his IP address to falsify British football statistics).
Wikipedia cannot deal with them, it is too corrupt and incompetent. One can't even figure out
how much subtle vandalism is going on because their changes look legitimate. It might be
possible to write a complex script to check simple things like sports stats, but you'd need a
verifiable database to check against, and it would be a big job. The people who could and SHOULD
do this, the guys who write editing and vandalism bots, won't. Because they would have to work
very hard to produce a script that is reliable, and because they don't care. Diddling Wikipedia is
supposed to be "fun", not work.

At the end of the day, Wikipedia is not an "encyclopedia". It is a fundraising scam.

They have to produce statistics that show the volunteer userbase isn't declining, so they wave
around the increase of total articles and the raw edit stats.
Nothing about the QUALITY of those articles. Nothing about the QUALITY of the edits.
Figuring out "quality" would cost a lot of money and their remaining "dedicated" volunteer
community is full of total raving flakes and fools, who don't want to hear there is a "problem".
So no one makes important changes, more and more bots generate crap content, and the
whole thing slowly declines.

I meant what I said in the other thread: Wikipedia will go the way of dmoz.org.

[Ceoil]

Sorry Eric, you make really great, LOUD, tubes (I'm a serious analog noise fan and follow), but you are another preson who is at the moment looking through a self reinforcing prism. Speaking as a person there and suffering since 2006, I'm enamoured with the project in a lot of ways, but really really disillusioned in a lot of other ways too. Ye guys can guess. There is a lot of discent within the project, notice Moni3's posts in the last few days, but the point is that its not reflexive, its thinking and constructive. Its not polemic, which is what I was trying to say to Peter.

This post has been edited by Ceoil: Mon 31st October 2011, 8:18pm

[Peter Damian]

Sorry Eric, you make really great, LOUD, tubes (I'm a serious analog noise fan and follow), but you are another preson who is at the moment looking through a self reinforcing prism. Speaking as a person there and suffering since 2006, I'm enamoured with the project in a lot of ways, but really really disillusioned in a lot of other ways too. Ye guys can guess. There is a lot of discent within the project, notice Moni3's posts in the last few days, but the point is that its not reflexive, its thinking and constructive. Its not polemic, which is what I was trying to say to Peter.

Ah hello Ceoil, I had forgotten you post here.

[Peter Damian]

Sorry Eric, you make really great, LOUD, tubes (I'm a serious analog noise fan and follow), but you are another preson who is at the moment looking through a self reinforcing prism. Speaking as a person there and suffering since 2006, I'm enamoured with the project in a lot of ways, but really really disillusioned in a lot of other ways too. Ye guys can guess. There is a lot of discent within the project, notice Moni3's posts in the last few days, but the point is that its not reflexive, its thinking and constructive. Its not polemic, which is what I was trying to say to Peter.

Ah hello Ceoil, I had forgotten you post here.

But where is my polemic? My original blog post had some very tentative conclusions.

[edit] There is also a maxim in logic that if you going to criticise an argument, you have to say what is wrong with it. I generally always try to give arguments. To accuse a logician of 'polemic' is a fairly bad accusation, not to be taken lightly.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 31st October 2011, 8:33pm

[Ceoil]

Hi Peter. I'd like to engage Eric, he is often astute but ruined by a perception of bitterness on the part of the faithful. I think he his criticism would be more valuable if he dropped the veneer. God knows the project is lacking introspection, and tends to shoot messengers. <four tides: Ceoil>

This post has been edited by Ceoil: Mon 31st October 2011, 8:36pm

[Ceoil]

Peter I'm not accusing you of anything, lets be fair. But I know the traps and would like to advise you if you'll listen.

[Peter Damian]

Hi Peter. I'd like to engage Eric, he is often astute but ruined by a perception of bitterness on the part of the faithful. I think he his criticism would be more valuable if he dropped the veneer. God knows the project is lacking introspection, and tends to shoot messengers. <four tides: Ceoil>

But you were having a go at me. Lacking self-awareness of whatever. What is the truth that you can see, that I am unable to see?

[communicat]

A message to me from a Wikipedian.

I wish you all the best, and look forward to the book, but hope you realise you have a blind spot, and that you do not bend the statistic you gather to reinforce what you already beieve. I think you are a good guy, have always though that, but you've been through the wars here, dont let it affect your critical distance as it will inevitably be used against you. Feel free to talk to me anytime, I have the same facination. Youd be surprised how many of us think similar to you, but more critically and with more self awareness. Still, best. Ceoil (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

OK I need to develop this ‘critical awareness’ about Wikipedia. Can anyone help me here?

By "critical awareness", he/she may be referring to an analysis that draws from knowledge across the social sciences and humanities -- not one that appears presently to be relying exclusively a quantitative analytical approach, (both in this topic as in its current fork marked "Content contributors").

I agree with Ceoil that you (and others in the discussions) may be striving to support with statistical evidence a hypothesis that you have already, prematurely formed; and thus provide your pre-selected hypothesis with a veneer of empirical respectability. As the discussions show, there are just too many variables involved for any convincing objective, quantitative "proof" to emerge. Forget about the maths and the empiricism and the "logic"; try a qualitative approach, which allows for a measure of subjectivity.

I think that demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method, perhaps one that Peter shares. The point of a hypothesis is to state it in such a way that it is susceptible to empirical investigation designed to disprove it, not to prove it. And to suggest that a qualitative approach may be more objective than a quantitative one is just risible.

What I'm suggesting is that the quantitative approach just ain't working in this particular instance of Peter/Edward's stated intention of writing a book about WP (see Peter/Edward-initiated topic "New book about WP"). Even if the quantitative approach was working, which it is not, nobody in their right mind is going to go out of their way to buy a book about WP stubs and shit. That's all I'm suggesting.

[Kelly Martin]

The problem I have with the proposed statistical "rules" that have been presented in this discussion is that they're all ad hoc, rather than empirical. That is, instead of taking a sample of edits or editors, categorizing them by inspection, and then doing an analysis of variance (or some other regression analysis) to identify metrics that are correlated with the already-determined categorizations, you instead identify metrics that you have a priori decided ought to correspond with categorizations. That's methodologically bankrupt; a decisional rule that uses a metric as proxy to categorize members of a population has to be empirically justified, and not just backdoored in by handwaving.

And it's not enough to generate a statistic and then look to see if the extremes fit your hypothesis (e.g. Peter's post giving the "top scorers" on some metric which I think is edits per page); such an analysis is vulnerable to confirmation bias. You need to look at a broad sample from the entire population, not just the three-sigma tail, if you want an actual predictive rule.

From where I sit the "statistical" evidence I've seen posted in this thread ranges from inadequate to farcical. Let's take radek's four-way categorization. Not hard to test it: Take a sample of about 50 editors, categorize them by inspection (not of their statistics, but of their apparent behavior based on examining their edits) into the categories provided. Then generate the statistics radek proposes, and run the numbers to see if the metrics really do predict the categorization, and with what degree of certainty. Until you actually do this, you're just pissing into the wind.

(This is on my mind at the moment because I've been reading some of the materials related to the dual-polarization radar that the NWS just put up here in Chicago. They've done a lot of research to try to come up with rules to translate the various additional metrics the new radar offers into actionable information such as "hail", "snow", "freezing rain", and "graupel". While they have some concepts of what they think will happen, the actual methodology used in the field is based on collecting the metrics and cross-correlating it with "ground truth" reports of what is actually going on in the field. They're doing it right, which is why they can predict the weather, and you can't.)

[Ceoil]

What Kelly said.

Peter I was not having a go at you at all. I'm a blunt person, trying here to influence your methology, which I think is at the moment skewed. We can talk, it doesnt have to be all or nothing.

[communicat]

Peter/Edward?Whatever: You're becoming as bad as Kohs, forking and convoluting topics, and soliciting people here at WR to go read your blogs posted elsewhere. But never mind, at least you've not yet started soliciting public donations, as Kohs does at Wikipedia Review.

This post has been edited by communicat: Mon 31st October 2011, 9:09pm