Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our Privacy Policy and User Agreement for details.

Like this presentation? Why not share!

- Google Schwag by Amy 421 views
- 1 Saria Maite,Oihane,Maider,Hai... by Tomi Etxeandia 459 views
- While42 quick presentation | while4... by nazdarovie 63 views
- Google control system part 1 mobile by Gantimonopoly20 3319 views
- Hacking Mediawiki by Jani Patokallio 8678 views
- Sorin Adam Matei Curriculum Vitae by Sorin Adam Matei 2288 views

2,604 views

2,535 views

2,535 views

Published on

Preseented at Wikimania 2009

http://wikimania2009.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:132

No Downloads

Total views

2,604

On SlideShare

0

From Embeds

0

Number of Embeds

46

Shares

0

Downloads

15

Comments

0

Likes

1

No embeds

No notes for slide

- 1. The structure of social collaboration on Wikipedia<br />Sorin Adam Matei, Associate Professor of Communication, Purdue U<br />smatei@purdue.edu<br />David Braun, Research Scientist, Envision Lab, Purdue U<br />dbraun@purdue.edu<br />HoriaPetrache, Assistant Professor of Physics, IUPUI<br />hpetrach@iupui.edu<br />Presented at Wikimania, 2009<br />Buenos Aires, Argentina<br />August 25-28 2009<br />http://wikimania2009.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:132<br />
- 2. 2005: A Wikipedian explains Wikipedia as Wisdom of Crowds<br />The basic premise [of Wisdom of Crowds] that crowds of relatively ignorant individuals make better decisions than small groups of experts. I'm sure everyone here agrees with this as Wikipedia is run this way...<br />Wikipedia displays emergent properties because each article is better than the contribution of each individual. Similarly, ants display emergence because an ant colony can accomplish things that each individual ant cannot even conceive.<br />
- 3. Implied idea<br />Fine grained, micro contributions, independent and decentralized and maybe equal lead to articles that are better than what each contributor can write<br />
- 4. As expressed in this Wikipedia-l post<br />I imagine Wikipedia as a massive, active swarm intelligence, supplemented by small roving groups of active editors who admire consistency, elegance, and reasoned discourse. (not unlike certain models of how the brain works :) The swarm does the bulk of the writing, especially finding and providing current facts, starting new articles, and adding neglected POVs. The roving groups are sensitive to dozens of policy pages, and implement them as they rove... they also take on large projects, one at a time, and try to implement certain changes across thousands of pages at once.<br />
- 5. To which “Jimbo” (Wales) answers<br />I should point out that I like Suroweicki'sthesis just fine, it's just that I'm not convinced that "swarm intelligence" is very helpful in understanding how Wikipedia works -- in fact, it might be an impediment, because it leads us away from thinking about how the community interacts in a process of reasoned discourse. <br />
- 6. Jimbo concludes<br />My research (conducted in December) showed that half the edits by logged in users belong to just 2.5% of logged in users.<br />
- 7. Does the 80/20 applies?<br />Power-law curves are all over the real world …<br />Adar and Huberman (2000) found 50% of the content on Gnutella is provided by 1% of the users, <br />O'Mahonyand Ferraro (2003) found the curve in the Debian dev key ring, Moon and Sproul (2002) on the Linux Kernel list, Briggs et al. (1997) in group support systems, Krogh, Spaeth and Lakhani (2003) in Freenet.<br />(By another participant to the 2005 discussion)<br />
- 8. What would the 80/20 rule mean?<br />Extreme inequality? Elitism?<br />Structured collaboration?<br />Interactive exchanges between groups of individuals?<br />
- 9. Previous research<br />Wikipedia contributions, in all languages, have become more skewed in favor of a small group of editors and old time users (Ortega et al., 2005)<br />
- 10. Top contributors dominate edits and no words contributed<br />
- 11. Our approach<br />Increase in inequality => higher level of structuration<br />Increasing division of labor<br />From diffuse collaboration to structured collaboration<br />Emergence of bureaucracy<br />Emergence of adhocracy<br />Groups of individuals that become article stewards<br />
- 12. Social entropy and structuration<br />Social Entropy<br />As system become organized (biased) their entropy decreases<br />Entropy is a measure of meaningful organization<br />
- 13. Entropy and organization<br />Meaningful messages use words and letters in uneven manner<br />Symbol distribution in meaningful messages is uneven<br />Information (and social) entropy are measures of organization and meaning<br />As collaboration becomes more biased, the group becomes more organized<br />
- 14. Shannon’s formula<br />where the sum is over all users i, and is the fractional contribution of user i. We allow p and S and to be functions of time (t).<br />
- 15. Shannon’s forumal explained<br />Social entropy reflects how uneven and lacking in diversity a group/system process is<br />10 users and 100 contributions, <br />each contributing 10 edits to a Wikipedia article => entropy reaches its highest level<br />1 contributor contributes all, entropy at the lowest value<br />
- 16. Analytic strategy<br />Downloaded latest available dump<br />Trouble with unzipping (dump corrupted)<br />Extracted <br />792,654 registered users<br />234,798 articles<br />Calculated number of times individuals contributed to each article and how many words have they contributed (not completely finalized)<br />
- 17. <ul><li>Red: observed entropy values
- 18. Orange: fit curve (takes into account the spread of values
- 19. Dotted: Maximum entropy, wisdom of crowds ceiling</li></ul>ln(x)<br />Intervention entropy<br />Basic plot: Entropy increases for the first @500 interventions, then levels off….<br />Intervention number (events)<br />
- 20. <ul><li>Red: observed entropy values
- 21. Orange: fit curve (takes into account the spread of values
- 22. Dotted: Maximum entropy, wisdom of crowds ceiling</li></ul>ln(x)<br />Intervention entropy<br />Intervention number (events)<br />Logged plot: Average article entropy increasingly and monotonously diverges from the “wisdom of the crowds” ceiling. Wikipedia becomes “cooler” and more and more structured ….<br />
- 23. Standard deviation/ Int. Entropy<br />After the 500th intervention the coefficient of variation (StDev/Mean) becomes constant; all articles tend to behave within the same limits of variability for the next 9,500 iterations<br />n-1/2<br />ratio<br />Intervention number (events)<br />
- 24. What remains to be done<br />Entropy decreases, Wikipedia “hardens”<br />Does it become more structured? In what way?<br />Will analyze degree of structuration measuring structure of coedits (network) analysis<br />Expectation: as entropy decreases, network structures become more hierarchical can inflexible (less degrees of freedom)<br />Will analyze distribution of collaboration across formal and informal roles<br />Who are the nodes of collaboration<br />What is their contribution to cooling and hardening Wikipedia<br />

No public clipboards found for this slide

×
### Save the most important slides with Clipping

Clipping is a handy way to collect and organize the most important slides from a presentation. You can keep your great finds in clipboards organized around topics.

Be the first to comment