- 1. Flagged revisions Latest results
2. Summary
- Goals 3. Methodology 4. Results 5. Questions and feedback
6. Goals
- Study theimpactofflagged revisionsin the editorial work of
theGerman Wikipedia .
- Focus onanonymouseditors. 7. Focus onvandalismand reverts.
- Questions:
- Is the vandalism from anonymous reduced? 8. Is the number of
anonymous blocks reduced? 9. Does it discourage anonymous from
editing? 10. Does it decrease number of requests for new accounts?
(TODO)
11. Methodology (overview)
- Parsepage-logging.xml 12. EDA on the data set.
- Survival analysis on time to review/revert an edit. 13. Numbers
and time series:
- Reverts 14. Blocks /IP-blocks 15. (Semi)-protection 16.
Sightedanonymous edits
- Comparison with similar versions.
- Polish & Russian(also with flagged-revs) . 17. Also WKP
comparable size (FR, IT)
18. Methodology (concepts)
- We focus on anonymous contributions. 19. Sighting actions
(manual)
- Approved : Revisionsmanuallyflagged asOK . 20. Approved-i :
Introduced later to identify first approvals.
- Sighting actions (automated)
- Approved-a, approved-ia. 21. Automated approval for trusted
editors. 22. Filtered-out.
23. Methodology (approvals) SET OF CONSECUTIVE ANON REVS (page
X) r 0 r 1 r 2 r 3 r N-1 r N . . . Pending Pending Pending Pending
Pending Pending At first, all revisions in a given series (same
page) arepending 24. Methodology (approvals) r 0 r 1 r 2 r 3 r N-1
r N . . . SET OF CONSECUTIVE ANON REVS (page X) Pending Pending
Pending Pending Then, we mark all revisions directly approved
Approved-direct Approved-direct 25. Methodology (approvals) r 0 r 1
r 2 r 3 r N-1 r N . . . SET OF CONSECUTIVE ANON REVS (page X)
Pending Pending Pending All revs in between 2 app-direct are
alsoapproved implicitly Approved-direct Approved-direct
Approved-implicit 26. Methodology (approvals) r 0 r 1 r 2 r 3 r N-1
r N . . . SET OF CONSECUTIVE ANON REVS (page X) Approved-implicit
Approved-implicit Approved-direct Pending Approved-direct
Approved-implicit All revs before direct approval are alsoapproved
implicitly 27. Methodology (reverts)
- Vandalreverts
- Identified by regexps. 28. Does not include standard admin
reverts.
- Otherreverts.
- Reverts without explicit reference to vandalism 29. Includes
admin reverts.
30. Methodology (reverts)
- Detecting reverted revisions
- First, look for the newest revision with the same size (after
revert action). 31. From that on, mark as reverted all consecutive
revisions performed by same IP. 32. If that fails, look for IP info
in the comment field, and look for newest revision performed by
that IP. 33. Then, same procedure to mark all consecutive
revisions.
- Feedback?
34. RESULTS 35. Evolution anonymous edits 36. Evol anonymous
edits (focus) 37. Evolution review actions 38. Time to
approve/revert revisions r 0 r 1 r 2 r 3 r N-1 r N . . . SET OF
CONSECUTIVE ANON REVS (page X) tstamp(r N-1 ) -tstamp(r 1 )
Anon-user Logged user Logged user Logged user Logged user
->Approve r 1 Logged user 39. Time to approve/revert revisions
Revisions approved orReverted at a very fast pace 40. Truth in
numbers
- Revert actions performed at very fast pace.
- Revert(median) : 48 min. 41. Revert-v(median) :36 seg . ()
- High number of actions registered ->accuracy
events *rmean *se(rmean)median 0.95LCL 0.95UCL Status=1
2892231241.80.5783.3693.345 3.3933 Status=2 1839583988.01.442
194.082 193.445194.7781 Status=33177451.00.7440.8070.7560.8700
Status=411963210.90.1680.0100.0100.0103 1 = Approved-d ; 2 =
Approved-im ; 3 = revert ; 4 = revert-v 42. Comments on time to
app/revert
- Implications
- Looks like extremely fast pace for acting on revisions. 43.
Community takes this new role very seriosly. 44. Provides stronger
incentive to watch content even closely.
45. Evolution % reverted edits Some reverts in the red line
could belong to the black one 46. Evolution % editors who revert
47. Evolution blocked users 48. Evolution of protection actions 49.
Conclusions
- In general, flagged revisions did not affected the anonymous
editing.
- Most revisions got approved very rapidly
- More activity on vandalism reverts.
- Even faster than approval actions.
- Reduced impact of vandalism.
- Growing number of reverts. 50. On an increasing number of
pages.
- Mandatory comments had much more direct influence.
51. Open questions / feedback
- Q: What did happen at the beginning of 2008 for such a high
number of user pages protected?
- A: mass-blocking of open proxies.
- Creating the user page of blocked IPs with a template and
protecting them.
- We need patterns for detecting reverts:
- Russian Wikipedia 52. Polish Wikipedia
- Comments and feedback are very welcome.