Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by West.andrew.g (talk | contribs) at 04:51, 7 February 2013 (→Vandalism permanence?: Forgot to sign). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Welcome to the personal talk page of West.andrew.g, My claim-to-fame (on wiki) is the development of the STiki anti-vandalism tool. If you'd like to contact me in that context, please do so on the software's talk page.

This is the talk page for user West.andrew.g. Should you need to contact me in a more private manner, it is not hard to find my email address on my academic homepage. Though I am usually a good talk page watcher, sometimes academic deadlines and conference travel may slightly delay the process. If you are not a regular here, I will generally post talkback templates to your user page. If you are a regular, I operate on the assumption you've watchlisted this page. Thanks!

Popular pages

Your table at User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages has got some real odd redlinked entries. Do you have an explanation for them? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Search functionality, scripts, and whatever else gets called on the server. Developer's could probably answer the question more appropriately. If the server "serves" the file, it gets recorded in the raw statistics. To quote the raw data page: "Each request of a page, whether for editing or reading, whether a "special page" such as a log of actions generated on the fly, or an article from Misplaced Pages or one of the other projects, reaches one of our squid caching hosts and the request is sent via UDP to a filter which tosses requests from our internal hosts, as well as requests for wikis that aren't among our general projects. This filter writes out the project name, the size of the page requested, and the title of the page requested." Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 03:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Signpost draft moved, for pub next week

• see Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2013-02-04/Special report and Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost#Top_25_Digest.--Milowent • 20:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent news; although we should be mindful of the trivial that updates that need to happen as the result of a fresh 5000/25 report. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'll make sure we have top 25 ready in advance of publication. Can't wait to see how many Superbowl-related articles will be on there this time!--Milowent • 03:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It's likely to be humongous! At least we can test our theory about extreme popularity -- that "highest hours" ever table might need updating with Beyonce if it holds! Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

My apologies again, and let me say that you two have crafted an excellent article. Ed  15:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Relatively few football articles, given the off week. I will rush through Sunday/Monday statistics to produce an early number of how well Beyonce did. Ping me when the new top-25 is up, and I'll see if I can add anything. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

New Top25 is up at Misplaced Pages:5000/Top25Report. I also tweaked the draft article to reflect the number of featured articles and good articles, etc., in the updated WP:5000 list. If Beyonce was super popular, we only need to update that table and mention it in text, because it was so recent. I suspect it will not be in Top 10, though.--Milowent • 16:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Beyonce didn't crack the top 8 (i.e., enough to make it into our article's table). However, I did make a small post at WT:5000 and will make a note of where she fell in the article, regardless. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for this excellent article. If you would like to do something similar in the future, just let me know. Regards, Ed  02:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I feel like this is a win-win for researchers and the Signpost alike. I recently heard from User:EpochFail (a researcher working on WP:Snuggle) that the Signpost was trying to create a small feature on "editing tools" (and recently featured his/that tool). If that opportunity comes around, I can not just talk about WP:STiki, but hopefully include some more fascinating statistics about damage/vandalism discovery and reversion. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd welcome those pieces. You'll be happy to know that thebrowser.com has picked up your piece, and the bit.ly link has 874 clicks alone... I'm waiting for this day to end to see the overall page views! Ed  20:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Excellent news! It's my dream to make Slashdot, but I fret I don't know anyone with enough influence in that realm. West.andrew.g (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

In that vein, I gave submission a shot, in a shameless self-plug in case anyone would like to "upvote". West.andrew.g (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I was going to tweet about it... but I don't see it there? Ed  21:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know. I submitted here but it disappeared out of their feed. I can't imagine it was that universally hated in a couple minutes time, unless I failed on some policy matter. Maybe you could give a copy edit and retry? West.andrew.g (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. In the meantime, enjoy and . :-) Ed  21:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Very very cool (especially the "tested.com" article, which obviously required a bit of effort). I hope this works out well for not just myself, but also draws traffic into the Signpost and the adjacent articles. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

While we're keeping score here, add and . Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Me too! Note that it looks like my submission is sticking... I think yours may have been removed because you had no tags. Ed  22:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I notice the Slashdot sub and The Atlantic blog piece are receiving a good bit of chatter on Twitter. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to add to it too, with @wikisignpost :-) Ed  22:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism permanence?

Are there any stats on how long it takes for vandalism to be reverted? In other words, if vandalism was becoming more of a problem, how would we know it? Biosthmors (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a CDF graph in this week's Signpost article that displays this. If my memory serves me correct, the median is around 80 seconds. We can learn more about this by plotting the survival times for vandalism sets collected over different time periods. With tools like ClueBot_NG, STiki, and the like being on the scene we are in a much much better place than we were several years ago when there was more reliance on manual discovery and revert/warning work. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder if something like this manual revert (I calculated 66 views -- also relevant is where in the article it is) would have been counted in that graph. I see the publication is about link spamming. Also the CDF graph shows a 500,000 "wide" slice of is cross-sectional data. Are you aware of any currently published longitudinal stats? Biosthmors (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that edit would be in the set. While it is an identity revert done by a trusted user (an important part of the equation), it lacks some of the heuristics consistent with vandalism (like being a rollback, a summary mentioning vandalism, or a warning to the user talk page). The set is built using hindsight heuristics described elsewhere in research.

Towards the CDF graph, realize that ~40% of damage is now undone with virtually no latency by bots. Indeed, prominence and article positioning are an important factor as to whether or not someone sees the damage, as my link spam publication discusses. I don't fully understand your point about the CDF graph and the 500k slice. Regardless, I am aware of no longitudinal analysis in publication -- but I would speculate that my data sets are in the best position to quantify it (if I had time). West.andrew.g (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)