Edit wars! Examining networks of negative social interaction

by taha yasseri 04/11/2016

While these interactions are less common, they strongly affect people’s psychological well-being, physical health, and work performance.

by taha yasseri 04/11/2016

Network of all reverts done in the English language Wikipedia within one day (January 15, 2010). Read the full article for details

While network science has significantly advanced our understanding of the structure and dynamics of the human social fabric, much of the research has focused on positive relations and interactions such as friendship and collaboration. Considerably less is known about networks of negative social interactions such as distrust, disapproval, and disagreement. While these interactions are less common, they strongly affect people’s psychological well-being, physical health, and work performance. Negative interactions are also rarely explicitly declared and recorded, making them hard for scientists to study. In their new article on the structural and temporal features of negative interactions in the community, Milena Tsvetkova, Ruth García-Gavilanes and Taha Yasseri use complex network methods to analyse patterns in the timing and configuration of reverts of article edits to Wikipedia. In large online collaboration communities like Wikipedia, users sometimes undo or downrate contributions made by other users; most often to maintain and improve the collaborative project. However, it is also possible that these actions are social in nature, with previous research acknowledging that they could also imply negative social interactions. The authors find evidence that Wikipedia editors systematically revert the same person, revert back their reverter, and come to defend a reverted editor. However, they don’t find evidence that editors “pay forward” a revert, coordinate with others to revert an editor, or revert different editors serially. These interactions can be related to the status of the editors. Even though the individual reverts might not necessarily be negative social interactions, their analysis points to the existence of certain patterns of negative social dynamics within the editorial community. Some of these patterns have not been previously explored and certainly carry implications for Wikipedia’s own knowledge collection practices—and can also be applied to other large-scale collaboration networks to identify the existence of negative social interactions. Read the full article: Milena Tsvetkova, Ruth García-Gavilanes and Taha Yasseri (2016) Dynamics of Disagreement: Large-Scale Temporal Network Analysis Reveals Negative Interactions in…

Mapping, Methods, Social Data Science

Edit wars! Measuring and mapping society’s most controversial topics

by taha yasseri 03/12/2013

Although some topics are globally debated, like religion and politics, there are many topics which are controversial only in a single language edition. This reflects the local preferences and importances assigned to topics by different editorial communities.

by taha yasseri 03/12/2013

Ed: How did you construct your quantitative measure of ‘conflict’? Did you go beyond just looking at content flagged by editors as controversial? Taha: Yes we did. Actually, we have shown that controversy measures based on “controversial” flags are not inclusive at all and although they might have high precision, they have very low recall. Instead, we constructed an automated algorithm to locate and quantify the editorial wars taking place on the Wikipedia platform. Our algorithm is based on reversions, i.e. when editors undo each other’s contributions. We focused specifically on mutual reverts between pairs of editors and we assigned a maturity score to each editor, based on the total volume of their previous contributions. While counting the mutual reverts, we used more weight for those ones committed by/on editors with higher maturity scores; as a revert between two experienced editors indicates a more serious problem. We always validated our method and compared it with other methods, using human judgement on a random selection of articles. Ed: Was there any discrepancy between the content deemed controversial by your own quantitative measure, and what the editors themselves had flagged? Taha: We were able to capture all the flagged content, but not all the articles found to be controversial by our method are flagged. And when you check the editorial history of those articles, you soon realise that they are indeed controversial but for some reason have not been flagged. It’s worth mentioning that the flagging process is not very well implemented in smaller language editions of Wikipedia. Even if the controversy is detected and flagged in English Wikipedia, it might not be in the smaller language editions. Our model is of course independent of the size and editorial conventions of different language editions. Ed: Were there any differences in the way conflicts arose/were resolved in the different language versions? Taha: We found the main differences to be the topics of controversial…

Interviews, Methods

Harnessing ‘generative friction’: can conflict actually improve quality in open systems?

by Kim Osman 14/08/2013

The more that differing points of view and differing evaluative frames came into contact, the more the community worked together to generate rules and norms to regulate and improve the production of articles.

by Kim Osman 14/08/2013

Image from "The Iraq War: A Historiography of Wikipedia Changelogs," a twelve-volume set of all changes to the Wikipedia article on the Iraq War (totalling over 12,000 changes and almost 7,000 pages), by STML.

Ed: I really like the way that, contrary to many current studies on conflict and Wikipedia, you focus on how conflict can actually be quite productive. How did this insight emerge? Kim: I was initially looking for instances of collaboration in Wikipedia to see how popular debates about peer production played out in reality. What I found was that conflict was significantly more prevalent than I had assumed. It struck me as interesting, as most of the popular debates at the time framed conflict as hindering the collaborative editorial process. After several stages of coding, I found that the conversations that involved even a minor degree of conflict were fascinating. A pattern emerged where disagreements about the editorial process resulted in community members taking positive actions to solve the discord and achieve consensus. This was especially prominent in early discussions prior to 2005 before many of the policies that regulate content production in the encyclopaedia were formulated. The more that differing points of view and differing evaluative frames came into contact, the more the community worked together to generate rules and norms to regulate and improve the production of articles. Ed: You use David Stark’s concept of generative friction to describe how conflict is ‘central to the editorial processes of Wikipedia’. Can you explain why this is important? Kim: Having different points of view come into contact is the premise of Wikipedia’s collaborative editing model. When these views meet, Stark maintains there is an overlap of individuals’ evaluative frames, or worldviews, and it is in this overlap that creative solutions to problems can occur. People come across solutions they may not otherwise have encountered in the typical homogeneous, hierarchical system that is traditionally the standard for institutions trying to maximise efficiency. In this respect, conflict is central to the process as it is about the struggle to negotiate meaning and achieve a consensus among editors with differing opinions and perspectives.…