Mapping Wikipedia (theatlantic.com) 64
An unprecedented data set shows where the encyclopedia's editors are, where they aren't, and why. From a report: Wikipedia matters. In a time of extreme political polarization, algorithmically enforced filter bubbles, and fact patterns dismissed as fake news, Wikipedia has become one of the few places where we can meet to write a shared reality. We treat it like a utility, and the U.S. and U.K. trust it about as much as the news. But we know very little about who is writing the world's encyclopedia. We do know that just because anyone can edit, doesn't mean that everyone does: The site's editors are disproportionately cis white men from the global North. We also know that, as with most of the internet, a small number of the editors do a large amount of the editing. But that's basically it: In the interest of improving retention, the Wikimedia Foundation's own research focuses on the motivations of people who do edit, not on those who don't. The media, meanwhile, frequently focus on Wikipedia's personality stories, even when covering the bigger questions. And Wikipedia's own culture pushes back against granular data harvesting: The Wikimedia Foundation's strong data-privacy rules guarantee users' anonymity and limit the modes and duration of their own use of editor data.
But as part of my research in producing Print Wikipedia, I discovered a data set that can offer an entry point into the geography of Wikipedia's contributors. Every time anyone edits Wikipedia, the software records the text added or removed, the time of the edit, and the username of the editor. (This edit history is part of Wikipedia's ethos of radical transparency: Everyone is anonymous, and you can see what everyone is doing.) When an editor isn't logged in with a username, the software records that user's IP address. I parsed all of the 884 million edits to English Wikipedia to collect and geolocate the 43 million IP addresses that have edited English Wikipedia. I also counted 8.6 million username editors who have made at least one edit to an article. The result is a set of maps that offer, for the first time, insight into where the millions of volunteer editors who build and maintain English Wikipedia's 6 million pages are -- and, maybe more important, where they aren't.
But as part of my research in producing Print Wikipedia, I discovered a data set that can offer an entry point into the geography of Wikipedia's contributors. Every time anyone edits Wikipedia, the software records the text added or removed, the time of the edit, and the username of the editor. (This edit history is part of Wikipedia's ethos of radical transparency: Everyone is anonymous, and you can see what everyone is doing.) When an editor isn't logged in with a username, the software records that user's IP address. I parsed all of the 884 million edits to English Wikipedia to collect and geolocate the 43 million IP addresses that have edited English Wikipedia. I also counted 8.6 million username editors who have made at least one edit to an article. The result is a set of maps that offer, for the first time, insight into where the millions of volunteer editors who build and maintain English Wikipedia's 6 million pages are -- and, maybe more important, where they aren't.
Mapping Wikipedia -- also known as (Score:3)
Where in Wikipedia is Carmen Sandiego [wikipedia.org]?
Correlation != Causation (Score:3)
I skimmed the article to look at their heat maps. I find it interesting the maps they chose to use in the article, and I have a reply: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I think it is apropos to respond to an article with perceived flaws using an article from Wikipedia.
Re: (Score:2)
So -- the fact that high rates of fundamentalist religious views could be caused by not editing Wikipedia... Or perhaps both are caused by some unidentified third factor.
Re: (Score:3)
Or perhaps both are caused by some unidentified third factor.
One of several they offered --- which seems far more likely than any other pattern --- was the combination of wealth and education.
You need some wealth so you have free time to edit the pages, money for a computer and internet access, and education so you can know what to edit. You also need enough tech education to make sense of how to sign up, edit pages, understand the markup, and submit it.
From the article: The pattern of editing activity in Appalachia and the South appears to match population density,
Missing factor (Score:4, Insightful)
Because of the "strong data-privacy rules" mentioned, the research did not include the edits by logged-in users.
But logged-in users make the majority of the edits! So this isn't a geographical map of people who edit Wikipedia-- it's a map of people who don't log in when editing.
That's a big factor!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not strictly - I do edit Wikipedia semi-frequently, I do have a login, and I can't count the times I was halfway through editing an article when I noticed I'm not logged in. Since I'm not chasing after reputation or guard my edits, I'd just click preview, submit, and never care that my new edit bears my IP, not my login name.
Re: (Score:2)
Because of the "strong data-privacy rules" mentioned, the research did not include the edits by logged-in users.
Wrong. You must have missed the part in TFS where it says:
I also counted 8.6 million username editors
"Wrong" is wrong [Re:Missing factor] (Score:2)
Because of the "strong data-privacy rules" mentioned, the research did not include the edits by logged-in users.
Wrong.
The text in quotes is a direct quote from the article. If you think it's "wrong", go complain to the person who did the research.
You must have missed the part in TFS where it says:
I also counted 8.6 million username editors
He counted how many username editors, but the article we're talking about is not about the count, it's about the locations. These logged-in editors were not included on the map. (Because it couldn't include them... they don't have the IP addresses for logged-in editors, and it is the IP address that they used to give them location.)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they get their facts from the Bible and not Wikipedia?
Re: (Score:2)
And beggars really hate dining in fine restaurants.
Maybe you'd see more Republican contributions if most of their submissions weren't being censored.
Wikipedia policies even legitimize this sort of bias. Primary sources are disallowed - what is allowed is press releases. So if the press release blatantly lies, you're not allowed to point out (primary) proofs of that being a lie and removing the entry based on the lie is considered vandalism.
Re: (Score:2)
You got as far as figuring out that press releases are allowed for something; the next step would be having curiosity about what sort of thing a press release is a reference for.
Intersectional Drivel (Score:4, Insightful)
Wikipedia matters. In a time of extreme political polarization, algorithmically enforced filter bubbles, and fact patterns dismissed as fake news, Wikipedia has become one of the few places where we can meet to write a shared reality.
Is "fact patterns" a new euphemism for the narratives you want to push?
The site's editors are disproportionately cis white men from the global North.
Yeah, their skin color and genitals are the most important qualities, rather than how far they lean left or other biases.
Compare the intros on these articles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Far-right politics are politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of extreme nationalism, nativist ideologies, and authoritarian tendencies. Used to describe the historical experiences of fascism and Nazism, it today includes neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, Third Position, the alt-right, white nationalism and other ideologies or organizations that feature ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, anti-communist, or reactionary views. These can lead to oppression, violence, forced assimilation, ethnic cleansing, and even genocide against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group, nation, state, national religion, dominant culture or ultraconservative traditional social institutions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Far-left politics are political views located further on the left of the left-right spectrum than the standard political left. The term has been used to describe ideologies such as: communism, anarchism, neo-Marxism, anarcho-communism, left-communism, Marxism–Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, and Maoism.
Suddenly when we write about far left politics, of course we don't feel the need to point out the awful consequences, no matter how high the body count.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Not supposed to talk about the death count on the left - because the death toll of the few right wing juntas in the world pales in comparison to that from the left - the Nazis, Stalin, Khmer Rouge, and the king of them all China/Chairman Mao.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you need a clean definition of right and left first then you can start trying to fit which is which, by the way none of that will help you. The current right and left are not the other groups, however please note that the current constitution
Re: (Score:1)
Right. Capitalist, focused on economic factors and growth, believe in strong police and military. Antiabortion and limited government (small government.)
Left. Focused on unions, social welfare, care less about police or military. Pro abortion and big government (want the government to solve all problems.)
Most candidates and parties show a mixture but the Republicans had lost their way up until Trump has brought them s
Re: (Score:1)
The right is not necessarily capitalist. Many modern politicians on the right tend to focus on that in the US, but world wide and historically there is wide variance. Remember these terms started in the French Third Republic in the 19th century.
Historically it has generall been along these lines:
Right: promoting/protect the upper class or dominant ethnic group.
Left: promoting/protect the lower classes or other ethnic groups.
Compare to my broad brush view of conservative vs liberal (in modern usage, which
Re: (Score:2)
So, they weren't real socialists, they just perverted the idea of socialism into something abusive and abhorrent?
Like about every single case of socialism in history?
Re: (Score:2)
How do you define socialism here? Nordic countries had Social Democratic parties in power for some time, with socialised programs, with a higher standard of living than the US. Yet mention a safety net or socialized medicine here in the US and conservatives recoil in horror (but readily pick up their social security checks).
The problem is that people keep moving the bar and redefining socialism. Bernie Sanders is in no way a socialist in the style of Marx or Engels, he's a socialist in the style of Sweden
Re: (Score:1)
Here is a clue to help you.
Communism (left)
Socialism (left)
Marxism (left)
Capitalism (right)
Democracy (would say hopefully both left and right most of the time)
Re: Intersectional Drivel (Score:1)
It's almost like "left" and "right" are meaningless pablum that serves only to confuse and stultify discussion...
Re: (Score:3)
Stalin is left the Nazis were left.
This seems to be a recent meme to basically say teh left si teh EUUULLL because it has NAZIs so the RIGHT is BETTER. Nazis are considered far right by the most of the world. And if you're trying to score points by pointing at the extremes, you've already lost.
Re: (Score:2)
If you go far enough right, or left, you end up in the same awful totalitarian spot.
Re:Intersectional Drivel (Score:4, Interesting)
Not supposed to talk about the death count on the left - because the death toll of the few right wing juntas in the world pales in comparison to that from the left - the Nazis, Stalin, Khmer Rouge, and the king of them all China/Chairman Mao.
Nazis are on the right, not the left, in spite of their name. The Nazi regime was fascist, not socialist. Hitler explicitly modeled his Nazi state on Mussolini's Italy (but was better at it).
But if you look closely, what you notice is that it's really not left vs right that determines whether there are enormous political death tolls, it's authoritarian vs libertarian. Authoritarian regimes on both left and right tend to kill enormous numbers of people, whether for ethnic cleansing/genocide, political wrongthink, or just stupid economic manipulation.
Governments with a strong focus on individual liberty and the rule of law, on the other hand, don't. This is partly because they don't have any reason to kill lots of people, but also because such governments are inherently biased towards centrism. It's impossible to radically remake society -- as both the extreme left and right want to do, though the left seeks some theoretical future and the right seeks some theoretical past -- without authoritarianism. Non-authoritarian radicals are forced to try to persuade people to their point of view, because they can't force it.
Trumpists should think very hard about the history of authoritarian governments which don't feel bound by the rule of law, in light of their support for one of the most authoritarian and least law-abiding presidents the US has ever had. (Note that in this context "law-abiding" refers to more than just not breaking the law, it also refers to honoring the principle and spirit of the rule of law, and not just black-letter law but also the institutional norms that keep the system on an even keel. Though Trump has certainly broken lots of black-letter laws, too.)
Re: Intersectional Drivel (Score:2)
And yet there's an entire section on far-left terrorism.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Suddenly when we write about far left politics, of course we don't feel the need to point out the awful consequences, no matter how high the body count.
What you may perceive as a difference in neutrality, I just see as a difference in article content worth summing up, as also evidenced by the multiple issues pointed out by the banner at the top of the far-left article.
Instead I'm guessing it's more due to the particular interests of the English-speaking editors, whereby everyone who has seen the Indiana Jones films can tell you that Nazis are way more fun than some bearded Marxists.
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing you can edit the wiki if you don't think it's accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
In theory, far left is about treating everybody the same, same opportunities for all, and shared wealth.
Whereas in theory far right is about "we" are better than "them" - in any interchangeable aspect, such as- nationality, wealth, intelligence...
What people have done in the name of those terms in another thing entirely. But in principle, the "far-left" ideology is "friendly", since conceptually it is always about equality and cooperation, whereas in principle, the ideology of the far-right is "contentious"
Demographic breakdown (Score:1)
> The site's editors are disproportionately cis white men from the global North
I don't recall providing any information as to location, gender, race or sexual preference, and would be interested to know how that is known (if it is to any degree of accuracy)...
Re: (Score:2)
> The site's editors are disproportionately cis white men from the global North
I don't recall providing any information as to location, gender, race or sexual preference, and would be interested to know how that is known (if it is to any degree of accuracy)...
That data seems to come from this survey: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik... [wikimedia.org] stating "Fewer than 1% of editors self-identified as transsexual or transgender. "
This is one in which the people surveyed self-report, so they may or may not be accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
"Fewer than 1% of editors self-identified as transsexual or transgender. "
Most estimates of transgender prevalence in the general population are that it is fewer than 1%.
So if the transgender prevalence among wiki editors, based on very weak data, is that it is normal, then why mention it?
Should they also mention that most editors have one nose?
You Had To Go There? (Score:1)
Should they also mention that most editors have one nose?
Why did you feel compelled to go there? You nasalists really make me sick!
Re: (Score:2)
Something smells rotten in denmark.
Re: (Score:2)
"Fewer than 1% of editors self-identified as transsexual or transgender. " This is one in which the people surveyed self-report, so they may or may not be accurate.
Of course it is not accurate. Plenty of trans people will see no reason to say about it in a general survey.
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct, how can they determine sex, and especially if you are cis or whatever the heck the op
They Have Your IP Address . . . (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
cis white men (Score:1)
You can tell that there is an agenda -- and the article therefore not objective -- as soon as you see something like
"cis white men"
Nothing to see here, move along.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
^^THIS. No one gives a fuck about bullshit "issues."
Because obviously the first thing I do is look at the gender(s) of who wrote an article instead of the quality of the text. /s
Said NO ONE.
Re: (Score:2)
Because obviously the first thing I do is look at the gender(s) of who wrote an article instead of the quality of the text. /s
Said NO ONE.
Sadly, I think that there are some people who say that exact thing. On both sides of the spectrum.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you look at the Wikipedia page for Mandiberg, "someone" has stripped out all his pronouns and replaced them with his surname.
That *does* tell you something for a taste of superficial politics over reality.
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at the Wikipedia page for Mandiberg, "someone" has stripped out all his pronouns and replaced them with his surname. That *does* tell you something for a taste of superficial politics over reality.
"Someone" is Patricia Brooks, Professor of Psychology at the College of Staten Island, City University of New York, and she explained the edit by stating that it's Mandiberg's preference. My guess is that she knows that because she knows Mandiberg personally, given that they both teach at the same college. It's not unlikely that he asked her to.
Drawing a conclusion about the population of Wikipedia editors as a whole from the action of one person, honoring the wishes of the person described in one artic
Re: (Score:2)
Drawing a conclusion about the population of Wikipedia editors as a whole from the action of one person, honoring the wishes of the person described in one article seems like just a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
It would be, if that were true. Overall, I'm impressed with the evidence-based impartiality of wikipedia as a whole. The white (and NE Asian) cis-males are doing a good job.
Just concerned that it is slowly trending away from that.
And I hope you are not suggesting that "honouring the wishes of the person described" is a good thing? Should the Harvey Weinstein page be updated to reflect his distorted view of reality?
English speakers edit in English (Score:2)
A study on who edits English Wikipedia finds that native speakers are the primary editors. Shocker.
Re: (Score:2)
A study on who edits English Wikipedia finds that native speakers are the primary editors. Shocker.
The 3rd biggest contributor is India, where most English speakers don't speak English as their mother tongue.
Mapping Wikipedia (Score:2)
I tried mapping Wikipedia a few years ago. The strangest thing happened, in the end all the links lead to this page [wikipedia.org].
Good to hear from someone who's unbiased (Score:2)
Not.
What a load of bollocks that was. How many mentions of the British Empire? Talk about not getting over it.
In other words (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or the fact that the editing functions are baroque at best.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, the areas of the USA that have fewer people have fewer Wikipedia authors.
You didn't read the summary. The data and maps are based on percentages, not absolute numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where's the map of population density ? (Score:2)
Lots of pretty pictures of the US, but as the pixels represent ground area, not population count, they're bound to show low numbers where there's a low population density. Politics and religion probably have nothing to do with it, but you'd need to do some proper statistics, not just draw pictures, to prove it either way.
Re: (Score:2)
The map at the top of the article says "percentage of households". That automatically adjusts for population density. When they go on to says low density areas have a low density of edits, that already takes the lower population into account. They mean a lower density of edits per capita.
Re: (Score:1)
Precisely my point - edits per capita, but Utah has far fewer capitas compared to its area than California, so Utah should be drawn smaller.
"Wikipedia matters." (Score:3)
Citation needed.