Submissions/The Keilana Effect: Visualizing the closing coverage gaps with ORES

From Wikimania
Jump to: navigation, search
Yes check.svg

This is an accepted submission for Wikimania 2017.

ETHERPAD: Wikimedia2017-KeilanaEffect
Submission no. 2119, C7
Title of the submission
The Keilana Effect: Visualizing the closing coverage gaps with ORES
Type of submission
Lecture
Author of the submission
EpochFail (Aaron Halfaker) and Keilana (Emily Temple-Wood)
Language of presentation
English
E-mail address
ahalfaker@wikimedia.org
Username
EpochFail
Country of origin
USA
Affiliation, if any (organisation, company etc.)
Wikimedia Foundation (Wikimedia Research)
Personal homepage or blog
http://socio-technologist.blogspot.com/
Abstract (up to 300 words to describe your proposal)

Since it's inception, Quality has been the most prominent concern about the future of Wikipedia. After all, how can high quality information artifacts be produced when there's literally no restriction on who is allowed to contribute? Over the past 12 years (as of 2017), the research literature around Wikipedia has advanced our understanding of the open encyclopedia's quality and the processes by which crowds of volunteers can manage such an information artifact.

Our first major leap in understanding of Wikipedia's quality dynamics happened around the time that Jim Gilles published a report in nature (2005) that surprised the world. This seminal report showed that Wikipedia's coverage of scientific content compared favorably (and in some ways, better!) that the more dominant encyclopedias that were used. Since that surprising result, researchers have been pushing toward greater understanding of how open, volunteer processes could have lead to this point.

While we do know a lot about quality dynamics in Wikipedia, there are still many questions that remain. Where are Wikipedia's coverage gaps? What types of editing patterns lead to efficient quality improvements? These questions are important for the science and for the practice of Wikipedians.

In this presentation, we'll demonstrate a novel article quality measurement strategy enabled by mw:ORES and show how it highlights the massive effect of en:Wikipedia:WikiProject women scientists on closing a critical coverage gap in Wikipedia. We'll also show how WikiProject Medicine is using the ORES article quality models to support article re-assessment work and WikiEd is using the same quality models to help students contribute effectively to Wikipedia.

Biology's quality dynamics. The wp10 quality prediction for en:Biology is plotted over time and shows several epochs in the articles' development.
WikiProject Women Scientists vs all Wikipedia. The difference in the average quality prediction for all of English Wikipedia and articles about Women Scientists is plotted over time. Note the transition from red to blue represents the switch from a gap to a surplus! Important dates for User:Keilana's initiatives are annotated.

This isn't just for English Wikipedia. We have article quality models for French and Russian Wikipedia. We're actively working on extending support to Portuguese Wikipedia, Spanish Wikipedia and Wikidata.

What will attendees take away from this session?
  1. A more nuanced understanding of the effectiveness of Keilana's efforts WRT coverage of Women Scientists
  2. A measurement strategy for observing gaps and how the gaps are closed
  3. A novel way of evaluating the effects of outreach activities -- specifically grants for edit-a-thons
Theme of presentation
  • WikiCulture & Community
Length of session
25 minutes
Will you attend Wikimania if your submission is not accepted?
Yes
Slides or further information (optional)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Keilana_Effect_(Wikimania_2017).pdf
Special requests
none
Is this Submission a Draft or Final?
Info

This is a Completed submission for Wikimania 2017 ready to be reviewed by a member of the Programme Committee.


Interested attendees[edit | edit source]

If you are interested in attending this session, please sign with your username below. This will help reviewers to decide which sessions are of high interest. Sign with a hash and four tildes. (# ~~~~).

  1. Smallbones (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. Kvardek du (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  3. Amir É. Aharoni (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  4. Slowking4 (talk)
  5. Schiste (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  6. Jtmorgan (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  7. --Nattes à chat (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  8. Katietalk 21:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  9. GDubuc (WMF) (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  10. Jorid Martinsen (WMNO) (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  11. Mkdw (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)