@@ -13,6 +13,13 @@ To this end, in the current chapter we study scientific literature on vandalism
Papers discussing vandalism detection from IR/ML perspective:
- Martin Potthast, Benno Stein, and Robert Gerling. 2008. Automatic vandalism detection in Wikipedia. In European conference on information retrieval. Springer, 663–668.
"But what’s less well-known is that it’s also the site that anyone can run. The vandals aren’t stopped because someone is in charge of stopping them; it was simply something people started doing. And it’s not just vandalism: a “welcoming committee” says hi to every new user, a “cleanup taskforce” goes around doing factchecking. The site’s rules are made by rough consensus. Even the servers are largely run this way — a group of volunteer sysadmins hang out on IRC, keeping an eye on things. Until quite recently, the Foundation that supposedly runs Wikipedia had no actual employees.
This is so unusual, we don’t even have a word for it. It’s tempting to say “democracy”, but that’s woefully inadequate. Wikipedia doesn’t hold a vote and elect someone to be in charge of vandal-fighting. Indeed, “Wikipedia” doesn’t do anything at all. Someone simply sees that there are vandals to be fought and steps up to do the job."
@@ -19,6 +19,13 @@ and 197: "amerikanisch -> US-amerikanisch ([[WP:RS\#Korrektoren]])"
Both are log only filters;
and it's a political fight
\url{http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/wikicodeislaw}
on software is political; the software that Wikipedia runs on is political; who writes it? what values do they embed in it? (cmp also Code)
"Wikipedia’s biggest problems have come when it’s strayed from this path, when it’s given some people official titles and specified tasks. Whenever that happens, real work slows down and squabbling speeds up. But it’s an easy mistake to make, so it gets made again and again.
Of course, that’s not the only reason this mistake is made, it’s just the most polite. The more frightening problem is that people love to get power and hate to give it up. Especially with a project as big and important as Wikipedia, with the constant swarm of praise and attention, it takes tremendous strength to turn down the opportunity to be its official X, to say instead “it’s a community project, I’m just another community member”."
\cite{GeiRib2010}
"We should not fall into the trap of speaking of bots and
assisted editing tools as constraining the moral agency of
