Flagged revs

1,016 views
924 views

Published on

Presentation showing the latest results (as of July 2010) of the flagged revisions study commissioned by WM-DE. Presented at Wikimania 2010 in Gdańsk (Poland).

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,016
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Flagged revs

  1. 1. Flagged revisions Latest results
  2. 2. Summary <ul><li>Goals
  3. 3. Methodology
  4. 4. Results
  5. 5. Questions and feedback </li></ul>
  6. 6. Goals <ul><li>Study the impact of flagged revisions in the editorial work of the German Wikipedia . </li><ul><li>Focus on anonymous editors.
  7. 7. Focus on vandalism and reverts. </li></ul><li>Questions: </li><ul><li>Is the vandalism from anonymous reduced?
  8. 8. Is the number of anonymous blocks reduced?
  9. 9. Does it discourage anonymous from editing?
  10. 10. Does it decrease number of requests for new accounts? (TODO) </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. Methodology (overview) <ul><li>Parse page-logging.xml
  12. 12. EDA on the data set. </li><ul><li>Survival analysis on time to review/revert an edit.
  13. 13. Numbers and time series: </li><ul><li>Reverts
  14. 14. Blocks /IP-blocks
  15. 15. (Semi)-protection
  16. 16. Sighted anonymous edits </li></ul></ul><li>Comparison with similar versions. </li><ul><li>Polish & Russian (also with flagged-revs) .
  17. 17. Also WKP comparable size (FR, IT) </li></ul></ul>
  18. 18. Methodology (concepts) <ul><li>We focus on anonymous contributions.
  19. 19. Sighting actions (manual) </li><ul><li>Approved : Revisions manually flagged as OK .
  20. 20. Approved-i : Introduced later to identify first approvals. </li></ul><li>Sighting actions (automated) </li><ul><li>Approved-a, approved-ia.
  21. 21. Automated approval for trusted editors.
  22. 22. Filtered-out. </li></ul></ul>
  23. 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) are pending
  24. 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. 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 also approved implicitly Approved-direct Approved-direct Approved-implicit
  26. 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 also approved implicitly
  27. 27. Methodology (reverts) <ul><li>Vandal reverts </li><ul><li>Identified by regexps.
  28. 28. Does not include standard admin reverts. </li></ul><li>Other reverts. </li><ul><li>Reverts without explicit reference to vandalism
  29. 29. Includes admin reverts. </li></ul></ul>
  30. 30. Methodology (reverts) <ul><li>Detecting reverted revisions </li><ul><li>First, look for the newest revision with the same size (after revert action).
  31. 31. From that on, mark as reverted all consecutive revisions performed by same IP.
  32. 32. If that fails, look for IP info in the comment field, and look for newest revision performed by that IP.
  33. 33. Then, same procedure to mark all consecutive revisions. </li></ul><li>Feedback? </li></ul>
  34. 34. RESULTS
  35. 35. Evolution anonymous edits
  36. 36. Evol anonymous edits (focus)
  37. 37. Evolution review actions
  38. 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. 39. Time to approve/revert revisions Revisions approved or Reverted at a very fast pace
  40. 40. “Truth in numbers” <ul><li>Revert actions performed at very fast pace. </li><ul><li>Revert (median) : 48 min.
  41. 41. Revert-v (median) : 36 seg . (¡¡¡) </li></ul><li>High number of actions registered -> accuracy </li></ul>events *rmean *se(rmean) median 0.95LCL 0.95UCL Status=1 2892231 241.8 0.578 3.369 3.345 3.3933 Status=2 1839583 988.0 1.442 194.082 193.445 194.7781 Status=3 31774 51.0 0.744 0.807 0.756 0.8700 Status=4 119632 10.9 0.168 0.010 0.010 0.0103 1 = Approved-d ; 2 = Approved-im ; 3 = revert ; 4 = revert-v
  42. 42. Comments on time to app/revert <ul><li>Implications </li><ul><li>Looks like extremely fast pace for acting on revisions.
  43. 43. Community takes this new role very seriosly.
  44. 44. Provides stronger incentive to watch content even closely. </li></ul></ul>
  45. 45. Evolution % reverted edits Some reverts in the red line could belong to the black one
  46. 46. Evolution % editors who revert
  47. 47. Evolution blocked users
  48. 48. Evolution of protection actions
  49. 49. Conclusions <ul><li>In general, flagged revisions did not affected the anonymous editing. </li><ul><li>Most revisions got approved very rapidly </li></ul><li>More activity on vandalism reverts. </li><ul><li>Even faster than approval actions. </li></ul><li>Reduced impact of vandalism. </li><ul><li>Growing number of reverts.
  50. 50. On an increasing number of pages. </li></ul><li>Mandatory comments had much more direct influence. </li></ul>
  51. 51. Open questions / feedback <ul><li>Q: What did happen at the beginning of 2008 for such a high number of user pages protected? </li><ul><li>A: mass-blocking of open proxies. </li><ul><li>Creating the user page of blocked IPs with a template and protecting them. </li></ul></ul><li>We need patterns for detecting reverts: </li><ul><li>Russian Wikipedia
  52. 52. Polish Wikipedia </li></ul><li>Comments and feedback are very welcome. </li></ul>

×