X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Wed Jun 10 12:46:07 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <25890ca0906092044o6958ed10v51542e3302705c43@mail.gmail.com>
References: <430756.3923.qm@web33301.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f826636f0906061827w774f6400ree23dfb2b5c51dc9@mail.gmail.com>
	<6fb557d70906080531s492a2a09w494e6e38d4ff7d77@mail.gmail.com>
	<f826636f0906080758y6824f97ah77013351f0b0b0f5@mail.gmail.com>
	<6fb557d70906090932w1b58e374w647634f714ce98a2@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A2EAA65.6030802@post.pl>
	<6c9a05ec0906091145vc2b5ef4m122913acd0300913@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A2EDE8D.2080605@post.pl>
	<25890ca0906091849r182b4a75s809dce690dcd4ba3@mail.gmail.com>
	<25890ca0906092044o6958ed10v51542e3302705c43@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:45:49 +0300
Message-ID: <6fb557d70906100345n705886e8t9321b9f76ca64a21@mail.gmail.com>
From: Miacek and his crime-fighting dog <miacek08@googlemail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: -2.5
X-Spam_score_int: -24
X-Spam_bar: --
X-Spam_report: Spam detection software,
	running on the system "pakkun.mirky.net", has
	identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
	has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or
	label similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
	the administrator of that system for details.
	Content preview:  The things (graphs?) this page seems to offer,
	would be
	of great use. (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1108044).
	M. On 10/06/2009, radek szulga <rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote: > For
	identifying existing cabals, formal or informal, wouldn't > something
	like a social network mapping tool (here is one: >
	http://www.orgnet.com/ though given that this is not my area I don't >
	know whether this is a good one or not, just googled it) be useful? >
	(I'm gonna guess that something like this has already been done and >
	I'm just not aware of it) > > If you got the software you could do
	several levels of analysis: > > * plain old map people who tend to edit
	the same pages - this would > however pick up cabals and their
	anti-cabals together (i.e. most > people on this list would get lumped
	in with most people in the > CUSSRC). To the extent that a lot of
	cabals
	are at least somewhat > multi-purpose you could still identify them to
	a certain extent. You > would most likely still pick up the
	single-purpose
	cabals. > > * do the one above but use common sense and outside
	knowledge to divy it up. > > * A statistically better approach, but one
	that would be quite labor > intensive, would be to incorporate the data
	on the number of reverts > that individuals have done on each other to
	separate the network > clusters. So if user X has reverted user Y at
	least N times in the > past T periods they're in separate cabals. Of
	course the meaning of > what a "revert" is would need to be quantified
	in a way which can be > systematically applied to a large data set but
	which captures the > essential meaning of a "revert". This is easier
	said than done as most > skillful edit warriors often try to hide their
	reverts as something > else (like Skapperod recently) > > * In addition
	to edits on articles you could map to what extent > various users
	comment each other's talk pages under the assumption > that if you're a
	member of a cabal or the anti-cabal (again, you'd > need additional info
	to separate these two) then you're more likely to > leave a comment on
	a
	fellow member (or anti-member) than if you're an > "uninvolved" editor.
	There's obvious caveats here. > > [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-2.5 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7-deb (2006-10-05) on 
	pakkun.mirky.net
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 
	autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: Re: [WPM] More cabal theory
X-BeenThere: folks@wikipedometer.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
List-Id: Wikipedia statistics <folks.wikipedometer.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks>,
	<mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:folks@wikipedometer.net>
List-Help: <mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks>,
	<mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: -2.5
X-Spam_score_int: -24
X-Spam_bar: --
X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "pakkun.mirky.net", has
	identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
	has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
	similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
	the administrator of that system for details.
	Content preview:  The things (graphs?) this page seems to offer, would be
	of great use. (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1108044). M.
	On 10/06/2009, radek szulga <rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote: > For
	identifying existing cabals, formal or informal, wouldn't > something
	like a social network mapping tool (here is one: >
	http://www.orgnet.com/ though given that this is not my area I don't >
	know whether this is a good one or not, just googled it) be useful? >
	(I'm gonna guess that something like this has already been done and >
	I'm just not aware of it) > > If you got the software you could do
	several levels of analysis: > > * plain old map people who tend to edit
	the same pages - this would > however pick up cabals and their
	anti-cabals together (i.e. most > people on this list would get lumped
	in with most people in the > CUSSRC). To the extent that a lot of cabals
	are at least somewhat > multi-purpose you could still identify them to a
	certain extent. You > would most likely still pick up the single-purpose
	cabals. > > * do the one above but use common sense and outside
	knowledge to divy it up. > > * A statistically better approach, but one
	that would be quite labor > intensive, would be to incorporate the data
	on the number of reverts > that individuals have done on each other to
	separate the network > clusters. So if user X has reverted user Y at
	least N times in the > past T periods they're in separate cabals. Of
	course the meaning of > what a "revert" is would need to be quantified
	in a way which can be > systematically applied to a large data set but
	which captures the > essential meaning of a "revert". This is easier
	said than done as most > skillful edit warriors often try to hide their
	reverts as something > else (like Skapperod recently) > > * In addition
	to edits on articles you could map to what extent > various users
	comment each other's talk pages under the assumption > that if you're a
	member of a cabal or the anti-cabal (again, you'd > need additional info
	to separate these two) then you're more likely to > leave a comment on a
	fellow member (or anti-member) than if you're an > "uninvolved" editor.
	There's obvious caveats here. > > [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-2.5 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.1 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

The things (graphs?)  this page seems to offer, would be of great use.
(http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1108044).

M.

On 10/06/2009, radek szulga <rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote:
> For identifying existing cabals, formal or informal, wouldn't
> something like a social network mapping  tool (here is one:
> http://www.orgnet.com/ though given that this is not my area I don't
> know whether this is a good one or not, just googled it)  be useful?
> (I'm gonna guess that something like this has already been done and
> I'm just not aware of it)
>
> If you got the software you could do several levels of analysis:
>
> * plain old map people who tend to edit the same pages - this would
> however pick up cabals and their anti-cabals together (i.e. most
> people on this list would get lumped in with most people in the
> CUSSRC). To the extent that a lot of cabals are at least somewhat
> multi-purpose you could still identify them to a certain extent. You
> would most likely still pick up the single-purpose cabals.
>
> * do the one above but use common sense and outside knowledge to divy it up.
>
> * A statistically better approach, but one that would be quite labor
> intensive, would be to incorporate the data on the number of reverts
> that individuals have done on each other to separate the network
> clusters. So if user X has reverted user Y at least N times in the
> past T periods they're in separate cabals. Of course the meaning of
> what a "revert" is would need to be quantified in a way which can be
> systematically applied to a large data set but which captures the
> essential meaning of a "revert". This is easier said than done as most
> skillful edit warriors often try to hide their reverts as something
> else (like Skapperod recently)
>
> * In addition to edits on articles you could map to what extent
> various users comment each other's talk pages under the assumption
> that if you're a member of a cabal or the anti-cabal (again, you'd
> need additional info to separate these two) then you're more likely to
> leave a comment on a fellow member (or anti-member) than if you're an
> "uninvolved" editor. There's obvious caveats here.
>
> * And then of course analyze the admin page disputes, sort of like
> what Deacon is trying to do with his mystery page but in a more
> systematic way. If user X is subject to a report did user Y comment on
> that case? Additional information on whether the comment was negative
> or positive would once again allow the separation of the cabal and the
> anti-cabal.
>
> *Given enough data you could control for other variables, like
> nationality or even time zones. So for example two Polish editors are
> more likely to both edit the same Poland related article than a Polish
> and a Chinese editor but that just means they have same interests, not
> that they're in a cabal. However if two particular Polish editors are
> more likely to both edit the same article than two randomly chosen
> Polish editors then the likelihood that they're members of a cabal is
> higher.
>
> This is something that theoretically could be done if the availability
> of the data and the time (this is why profs have research assistants)
> to do it weren't a problem. But otherwise it could be used on a
> smaller scale, combined with just plain common sense and tacit
> knowledge of how Wikipedia works and it could possibly highlight
> something that wasn't realized before.
>
> Radek
>
> 2009/6/9 radek szulga <rsszulga@gmail.com>:
>> There is this:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Germans_in_Russia_and_the_Soviet_Union
>>
>>
>> 2009/6/9 Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl>:
>>> Molobo Molobo wrote:
>>>> Yes Matthead and Scinurae were engaging of support to Deacon and Irpen
>>>> in Soviet-Polish related topics....but...if you manage to direct the
>>>> German Cabal into editing information about Soviet presence in Germany
>>>> they get head to head-I do recall Irpen and Stork Stark(German Cabal)
>>>> becoming friendly but that ended when Stor Stark started writing about
>>>> Soviet rapes.
>>>> So it could be possible to destroy that alliance by some clever
>>>> maneuvering. Since we all are anti-Soviet it would be easy for example
>>>> to write some information or article about Soviet crimes in Germany and
>>>> then ask both sides for opinion in addition to others-this could provoke
>>>> a conflict if made in clever way.
>>>
>>> Yes, that's a good strategy - improve Wikipedia and hurt the POV pushers
>>> :)
>>>
>>> Do we have an article on the German minority in the Soviet Union and
>>> their treatment during the war? That may be a nice one.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Prokonsul Piotrus aka Piotr Konieczny       |||____  __ __
>>>                                       I=I====__|_|I__I=>
>>> "Lennier, get us the hell out of here."     |||
>>> "Initiating 'getting the hell out of here' maneuver."
>>>  -- Ivanova and Lennier in Babylon 5:"The Hour of the Wolf"
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikipedia statistics discussion list
>>> folks@wikipedometer.net
>>> http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia statistics discussion list
> folks@wikipedometer.net
> http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks
>

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia statistics discussion list
folks@wikipedometer.net
http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks

