Visualizing the Wikipedia Power Struggle

todd450 pointed us to a nifty visualization of Wikipedia and controversial articles in it. The image started with a network of 650,000 articles color coded to indicate activity. The original image is apparently 5' square, but the sample image they have is still pretty neat.

Comments

"Steal"?

[Bigbutt]

This word is not the word you think it is.

[John]

Nice editing

[Anonymous Coward]

The original image is apparently 5' square, but the sample image they have is steal pretty neat.

It's still pretty colorful.

Yeeha!

[Rob T Firefly]

but the sample image they have is steal pretty neat.When did Speedy Gonzales get a job at OSTG?

Mirror of Sorts

[VE3OGG]

I am not sure if this is where the article originates from (or vice versa), but here is another example of visualizing Wikipedia:

http://researchweb.watson.ibm.com/visual/projects/ chromogram.html

LOL!

[Kream]

/windowslivewritervisualizingthepowerstruggleinwik ipedia-f7c7wikivisenlargesection44.jpg

Service Temporarily Unavailable
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.
Apache/1.3.33 Server at www.abeautifulwww.com Port 80

Re:LOL!

[Thwomp]

Yee-hah! We've got ourselves an old-fashioned slashdotting. I ain't see one of those in nigh-on thirty stories.

Re:Another one bites the dust...

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you been stealing their bandwidth?

Today on /.

[faloi]

We axe y we dont juzt speel foneticly!

Wow...

[Adam Zweimiller]

So not only is the submitter shamelessly plugging his own site, but it:

A) Crashes before there are 9 comments and B) Doesn't know how to spell "still" Glad to see slashdot's standards are still so high, CmdrTaco. Thanks.

hmmmmm

[jollyreaper]

So here's a site discussing the Wikipedia edit war. Slashdot has tried to remain a neutral power in the war. A link is posted to the slashdot front page and the server is destroyed. Slashdot has been drawn into the war! A sword-day, a red day, ere the Sun server reboots!

Re:hmmmmm

[lilomar]

A site discussing the Wikipedia edit war.
Slashdot has tried to remain a neutral power.

A link is posted to the front page!
The server is destroyed!
Slashdot has been drawn to war!

A sword-day;
A red day;
Ere the Sun server reboots!

Sorry, it sounded so poetic, I had to reformat it. (note that, unlike my other posts, this one doesn't belong to me, I blatantly stole it from jollyreaper. So it doesn't enter the PD until he releases it, or for 70 years after his death.)

The Slashdotted Article

[Anonymous Coward]

A new visualization Bruce Herr and I recently completed is being featured in this weeks New Scientist Magazine (thearticleis free online, minus the viz). They did a good job jazzing up the language used to describe the vizpower struggle, bubbling mass, blitzed articlesbut they also dumbed down the technical accomplishments. I guess not everyone gets as excited about algorithms as I do.Before I talk anymore about the viz, though, let me mention its appearing at the NetSci 2007 Conferencethis week, and hopefully a varient will appear at Wikimania later this summer as well. The viz is a huge 5 feet by 5 feet when printed, and I only include a low res, smaller version here. At some point high qualityart prints of it will appear at SciMapsfor sale to fund further visualization research.

Now for the good stuff. Much like my visualization of the netflix prize competition data, we began this piece byrepresenting the dataas a network. In this case the nodes in the network are wikipedia articles and theedges are thelinks between articles. We then (with some help from our friends at Sandia) used an algorithm to lay out all 650,000nodes (wikipedia articles) that had at least one link in such a way that similar articles are near one another. These are the yellow dots,which when viewed at low res give a yellow tint tothe whole picture.

The sizes of the nodes (circles, dots, whatever you want to call them), are based on a model of revision activity. So large circles indicate that an article might be controversial, or the subject of lots of vandalism, or just a topic whose content frequently changes. We labeled only the largest nodes, to keep it readable. Thereis an interactive version of this in the works based on the google maps platform which will change the labels and pictures used as the user zooms in or out. Stay tuned for that.

The image used for each tilewas selected automatically, simply by using the first imagein the most linked to article among all the articles inthat tile.We were pleasantly surprised by the quality of the images that appeared.

Our hope for this visualization approach, which we continue to improve on,is that it could be updated in real time to give a macro sense of what is happeing in Wikipedia. I personally hope that some variation of it will end up in high schools as a teaching tool and for generating discussions.

Now all they need to visualize

[Moryath]

is how many false charges of "sockpuppet" or "troll" are put in by the abusive administrators that run the place.

Whoops. Did I say something less then complimentary about the quantum fucking encyclopedia, where info may or may not be correct based on which second of the day it is, and where you can be assured that the moment someone tries to fix it, they'll be beat down by an army of socially inept retards who have nothing better to do than accumulate hundreds/thousands of edits per day in hopes that they, too, can become administrators and ban anyone they disagree with?

Re:Now all they need to visualize

[sjwest]

Being an idiot on 400 subjects has to count for something.

I edit one page of the wiki and no more very occasionally. Since any moron can write what they like there super but if any moron who is a 'super-moron' on 400 topics just shows that being 'responsible' is a strange state of mind.

Re:Now all they need to visualize

[pretygrrl]

MOD UP THE PARENT. Nothing evenn remotely flamebait about it.
How ironic that he totally saw it coming, criticizing wiki.

that site has gone beyond annoying, beyond misleading, its actually dangerous. Wiki is at the top of just about every google search. The entire storehouse of human knowledge (i.e. the internet) is being hijacked by a media company (google) via the mindless peddling of "consensus" that is wikipedia.
there can be no popular consensus for topics that require a lifetime's study. there is no easy substitute for study. all opinions are not created equal.
amazing, that what, 6 years into wikipedia's existence, that is actually considered a "flamebait" thing to say.

both of the links in the comment are really intelligent.

Similar effort

[Chairboy]

Last year, I did a similar indepth analysis of Wikipedia, generating a map describing the major components of the project with their interlinks:

http://www.hallert.net/images/mapofwikipedia.GIF

Re:Another one bites the dust...

[Lockejaw]

It probably looks something like this.

just like your link

[Shivetya]

I too have given up in helping Wikipedia through creating new articles or editting obviously bad ones. It just doesn't matter. If not for the idiots in some areas its the political slant in others that is just mind boggling. Wiki died the day that intrest groups found it and realized they could sway public opinion by marginalizing a site which supposedly has accurate information.

Re:just like your link

[mpe]

Wiki died the day that intrest groups found it and realized they could sway public opinion by marginalizing a site which supposedly has accurate information.

The problem with interest groups is not only do they typically have a lot of time and resources they also tend to have a strong tendency to monopolise the issue in question. Sometimes to the point where they appear incapable of actually rationally defending their position, whilst having almost stereotypical strawmen and ad hominum responses. (Zionists and Feminists must qualify as "textbook examples"...)

Visualising the Wikipedia power strugles

[suv4x4]

Topic: "Visualizing the Wikipedia power struggles"

Page, visualizing the power struggle: "Service Temporarily Unavailable
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later."

R.I.P. Wikipedia lost the power struggle...

The two sides of Wikipedia

[br00tus]

I began editing on Wikipedia in 2003 and used it a lot for a while until over time I began realizing that the problems with it were not going to go away, but seemed to be getting worse, so now I do not edit it any more.

One thing I learned is there are two sides of Wikipedia. In the upper right hand corner of the main page you can see what are called the "master categories". The categories such as Mathematics and Science highlight what is best about Wikipedia. The categories such as History and Society highlight what is worst about Wikipedia. You do not really have big battles over articles like "Pythagorean theorem", and they usually do a good job of explaining what that is. On the other hand, if you look at the top of an article like "Palestine" you will see that it is semi-protected, meaning new users can not edit the article. You can also see eight pages of discussion which really doesn't get anywhere. The article is garbage. The Wikipedia cabal likes to say things like cooler heads eventually prevail on such articles, but that is just a lot of bullshit. The cabal itself can often be the problem - if you look at the article's originator, it is Ed Poor, who has not only an admin but a bureaucrat at Wikipedia. He is also a Moonie, with some very strange beliefs, not only religious, which I could care less about, but politically. It's typical Wikipedia that he would create the article, and more so that he has held such high level positions.

Actually I antagonize in using the Wikipedia cabal phrase as these people are so paranoid they have replied to messages like this on Slashdot in the past with stuff like "AHA! YOU SAID CABAL! YOU ARE ONE OF 'THEM'! AN ENEMY! ONLY ENEMIES OF WIKIPEDIA USE THAT PHRASE". Or maybe I could say Wikipediareview.com has some good criticisms of Wikipedia, since they're fanatical about that site to where you are not allowed to mention it on the "Criticism of Wikipedia" article.

I spent a bit of time on Wikipedia and used to care more about this due to that time spent etc. Nowadays I just contribute to other wikis I like which I feel are more balanced. I should note that Jimbo Wales ran the Ayn Rand mailing list for years, has said "[F. A.] Hayek's work...is central to my own thinking about how to manage the Wikipedia project.", and I can give dozens of more examples of where Wales's somewhat far out political biases lay. This political bias starts at the top and works its way down, as one can see with his appointment of people who did not make the cut electorally such as JayJG to Arbcom.

My advice to people is to patronize other wikis - the concept of a wiki encyclopedia is a great idea, but their political views are so far out, that it fragmenting is a certainty.

Re:The two sides of Wikipedia

[Anonymous Coward]

those are very good criticisms and probably entirely valid. i have some questions though. when you pick up the new york times and read an article by reporter x, does reporter x cite his or her sources? if reporter x gets the facts wrong, how do you find out about it? will the story have changed when you pick up the paper in a week? how do you know how many people have edited the story? how do you even know how many people had input into the reporter's final work? did you notice that in your lengthy and valid critique you were able to tell us about the originators of certain articles, their inherent biases and other things? you also mentioned several pages of discussion. is there any way to find out what gets discussed when an article gets published at cnn.com?

as i said, your criticisms are valid, but contained in the criticism are good arguments as to why wikipedia is possibly the best source of information we have commonly available. when you buy an encyclopaedia you have no idea at all about the processes and biases that lead to the weight of paper you hold in your hand. with wikipedia at least you have some idea of how the content is created. it's funny that people treat wikipedia with the skepticism they should view all media with.

Re:The two sides of Wikipedia

[Chairboy]

Mentioning Wikipedia Review is not, on it's own, terribly crazy. It's just the context you choose.

For example, Wikipediareview has made a policy of harassing editors and admins, the users coordinated attacks where they call people at their houses late at night and call their employers to complain about them to get them fired. Do you support that? Since you're probably not going to respond to this, it's probably fruitless to ask, but you opened the door with your line of comment. You REALLY want to use Wikipedia Review as a reference?

So mentioning that site to bolster your viewpoint (presumably, you're an editor who disagreed with a decision that applied to you, as in perhaps you tried to use Wikipedia as a MySpace site, or were pushing a point of view in contravention of the site policies, or were upset when the article your wrote about your math teacher was deleted as 'non-notable') is similar to starting a conversation with "Now, the Nazi medical experiments were terrible, but we _did_ learn some useful things from them..." (howdy Godwinists!)

So, your credibility is basically shot. The cabal reference underscores it. I'm an admin there, and we can't even agree on what to order for our pizzas, much less plot to push some sort of wacky political agenda.

Your bozo bit has been set, good day.

Re:The two sides of Wikipedia

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a Wikipedia editor, or the guy who wrote the grandparent comment, or in any other way connected with this discussion, but your comment comes off as really smarmy and unpleasant. Assuming that because this guy is critical of the big W that '(presumably, you're an editor who disagreed with a decision that applied to you, as in perhaps you tried to use Wikipedia as a MySpace site, or were pushing a point of view in contravention of the site policies, or were upset when the article your wrote about your math teacher was deleted as 'non-notable')' is very childish and indicative that you really are unwilling to listen to dissenting viewpoints, which is sort of the foundation of any collaborative endeavor.

Additionally, sad as it seems to say, yes, we did learn some valuable things from those medical experiments. While they were disgusting and reprehensible ( particularly, to my mind, the high altitude work done at Dachau ), it does make sense to use the data rather than expose another round of subjects to less intense but still stressful and dangerous experiments provided the methodology employed was sound.

Not to get too deeply into the debate as to whether using that research to save lives helps to inject their loss to society with some essence of hope, the fact is that the truth is the truth regardless of which mouth it comes from. If this site, whatever it is, is saying true, uncomplimentary things about Wikipedia, they are still true, even if the participants should be laboring under restraining orders for harassing Wikipedia staff members.

You said that mentioning Wikipedia Review was not inherently bad in and of itself, but then went on to say that referencing it to support a viewpoint was - what else should the grandparent mention it for? As part of a delicious ham sandwich? Can you give an example of a mentioning context that you would find acceptable?

Good day to you sir.

Re:The two sides of Wikipedia

[Kjella]

Have you ever been to a soccer match? There's 11 guys on each team that desperately wants everything to be a call in their favor, and one referee that's supposed to be neutral. He gets hounded about 98% of the time. At times you'd think he was dumb, deaf, blind, bought and that his walking dog needs glasses from the sound of it.

Now imagine a match where the fans could overturn the referee's decision. Repeatedly, both sides. "Free kick for the red team" "No, free kick for the blue team" "No, free kick for the red team". Every so often a guy would run around and show all the players the red card, and you'd have to undo it.

You get the pleasure of being called partial by morons who are so far from being level it's a wonder they don't tip over. And you sure don't get paid for it, or have any league that'll slap the worst personal attacks. You've got zero authority except temporarily locking edits which is like getting between two NFL teams waiting for the play signal again.

That pretty much sums up the fun of trying to get a neutral and balanced article on a controversial topic in Wikipedia. I understand perfectly those who give up. I use Wikipedia for quick "what is that?" and simple facts. If I want to form an opinion on something, I'm not looking to wikipedia for a balanced view...

Re:The two sides of Wikipedia

[superpulpsicle]

I think wikipedia has absolutely blew away every existing encyclopedias ever existed out there. I really hate the idea of oversourcing, as some subjects are so blatantly obvious to even bother referencing. I appreciate all articles but there comes a point when it is obvious the root of all problem is "Vandalism"!!!

Someone pull the plug on IP editing. They should be required to setup with a legit email and at least a 3 day wait. Users who trash articles with BS comments should have their account deleted right away and make them start over.

Re:The two sides of Wikipedia

[MarkH]

Of course controversial subjects are fought over.

Expecting any guide to provide the definitive perfect global view of topics like 'Jesus', 'Islam', 'terrorism' is asking a bit much. In fact we might find the endless edits and discussion on these key topics provide invaluable data to future anthropologists for the Zeitgeist around a topic at a particular time.

Any book or guide purporting to be the definitive guide would be the anti-thesis of many social science aims - we should encourage skepticism of sources. Like any secondary or tertiary source - as long as you use with open eyes then no problem.

Re:The two sides of Wikipedia

[gwern]

...And it's Ed Poor's strange beliefs and actions which are precisely why he is no longer an administrator or beaucrat and spends his time working on the Moony's Wikipedia fork and Conservapaedia.

Yet another example

[VE3OGG]

http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_4/spoerr i/index.html

This one is less pretty with colours, but way more informative...

Oblig xkcd reference:

[VE3OGG]

http://xkcd.com/c195.html -- Map of the Internets
http://www.xkcd.com/c256.html -- Map of online communities

Steal pretty neat

[CmdrPorno]

Despite the power struggles, Slashdot and Wikipedia are steal pretty cool websites. You can still content from them and put it up on your own blog.

Network Mirror of the site

[mpieters]

Mirror including the famed image

70%"Flamebait"?They're deadly afraid of the truth!

[Moryath]

So, at least 3 Wikipedia admin-cultists got mod points today so far. How many more will it be?

Conservapedia- A trustworthy alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you considered contributing your time to Conservapedia? I've found that it's a much more trustworthy source than the liberal internationalist Wikipedia. Just look at how the article on Homosexuality opens:

Homosexuality is sexual activity between members of the same sex.
Sexual relations between two men is condemned in both Old and New Testaments. It is forbidden directly four times in the Bible.

Doesn't that sound better than Wikipedia?

Very Leftist

[Quila]

Personally, I'm not really "right" or "left." I just want to live my life as free as possible from government control -- the control constantly sought by both the left and right. I get called a leftist by those on the right, and a rightist by those on the left, so I guess that puts me in the middle somewhere.

Given that, I do see a serious ideological left bent in Wikipedia. I've tried to put hard facts (well-cited, thank you) to give a counter to obviously left-biased articles (or articles where the viewpoint is used to justify government intrusion), only to have them removed or edited to oblivion. It's often a hard fight to keep such facts in Wikipedia. Anti-American sentiment is definitely there, with wild, unsubstantiated rumors that keep popping up again after they're killed, and the editors will not keep them out. In that case the only recourse is to post the facts in opposition to the rumors (and hope they survive), but such things should not have to be done.

Yes, I abhor the pathetic conservapedia even more. Wikipedia's slant is more of an accident, a result of the populace and to some extent those Wales put in charge. But conservapedia was conceived as biased.

Re:Very Leftist

[NevarMore]

You sir are at least a libertarian.

Have you thought about becoming a Libertarian? http://lp.org/

Re:Very Leftist

[Quila]

I considered it, but some things still rubbed me wrong. What I can't do is get into either of the main parties.

Democrat: Out of your bedroom and into your business.
Republican: Out of your business and into your bedroom.

But there's been some crossover, each inheriting the worst traits of the other.

As Penn & Teller would say...

[Moryath]

"Bullshit!"

You ought to read this great blog by a former wikipedia admin. He details the powers a wikipedia admin gets and the methods by which admins connected to partisan debates, or just assholes who managed to get an admin bit, abuse people.

They get to be as abusive as they want language-wise, and if anyone chides them on it, the other admin-cultists will back them up.

They get to block anyone, for any reason, at any time, and the "procedures" wikipedia has for an appeal are a joke.

They can block someone indefinitely, lock down the user page and talk page so that filing for an appeal can't even be done, and just walk away. The appeals email list is locked down and non-archived, so nobody can see what they're doing (not that they ever did anything but rubber-stamp abuse by admins anyways).

Wikipedia's admin-cultists exist by trying to control the debate. They control who can speak, and when. They control whether or not a source or fact can even be mentioned in an article. They extend this behavior to mailing lists, to IRC channels; in short, if an admin decides you ought to be "banned", even if the admin is just doing it because they disagree with something that you posted that meets all the other sourcing/NPOV criteria, they WILL do it and they WILL get away with it.

I'm gonna quote him here because he said it better than anyone:

Interestingly enough, the BITE policy has a telling statement: nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism.

Why is this interesting? Because this is precisely the goal of the abusive administrators. They want, no, need, to drive away anyone new who disagrees with them, because if they did not, then ultimately they bear the risk of enough new users coming in to overturn their bogus "consensus" on the articles they control.

Re:Don't abuse your position

[ShinmaWa]

If they use their position to censor speech unnecessarily, then yes I totally support that.

So, you support real-life criminal harassment over silly crap that happens on a volunteer-run free website? Wow.

You really need to get a sense of perspective, dude.

That top 20 and evangelism

[macraig]

From the Top 20 Most Hotly Revised Articles (in the article):

1. Jesus
4. Nintendo revolution
10. Playstation 3

So Sony Playstations and Nintendo systems inspire almost as much evangelism as Jesus? Seems to me that both atheists and Christians ought to have a problem with that false idol worshipping.

wikipedia is a useful dynamic

[2TecTom]

and therefore, one distinct advantage it has over traditional encylopedias is in its ability to reflect changing beliefs and controversies

personally i'm tired of "either or" type thinking, in fact, I use each and every resource