Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-12-24/Recent research

Discuss this story

surely it would've been better as the Principedia Mathematica? Rexo (talk | contributions) 10:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that the paper about the article for climate change deserves to be further discussed (maybe in a "Disinformation report"), given how important the subject is for our planet, and given the impact Wikipedia can have on people's perception of a certain matter, for better or for worse - as the OceanGate disaster taught us. Oltrepier (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hard to say because the paper isn't open-access, but note that it's written by a sociologist, not a climatologist or meteorologist or the like. I'm not a fan of the framing though - you could imagine an arbitrary indisputably negative event, and 50 negative words that might go with it. Is it a problem if only 30 of those possible negative words are used? Is the lack of those 20 other negative words a sign of going easy on the topic? (Or rather just, uh, people write differently and space is limited, the null hypothesis)? I'd love to see a deep dive into Wikipedia's treatment, but the abstract's described approach does not sound promising, i.e. whether Wikipedia is using the word "crisis" enough. Like, the article South Sudanese Civil War only uses the word "crisis" once (excluding names of organizations, references, & external links), but anyone reading the article who thought it was No Big Deal didn't read very closely. SnowFire (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Most Sage journals are accessible via WP:TWL, like so. If editors without 6mo/500 are also interested in reading I think we can generate and post a link here as well (policy says personal use/post on social media is fine). Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia editors are quite prosocial"...I feel attacked by this relatable content. *ducks* _Sorry. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Prosocial"... said no one about me ever. Heh. Seriously, I spend a lot of time alone, how the hell else would I be able to focus on Wikipedia issues? Come on now, a bit of common sense is in order here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Prosocial behavior is a social behavior that "benefit[s] other people or society as a whole", "such as helping, sharing, donating, co-operating, and volunteering". It's not about being the life of the party at a social event. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  And in the paper, this "prosocial" behavior was measured based on the editors' actions in a public goods game (with $10 of real money at stake):
  
  Group members need to decide how much to contribute to a common project. Each dollar invested in the common project produces $1.6, which is then equally distributed among group members. Thus, a $1 investment only yields a private return of $0.4, but benefits all other members of the group. This design captures the social dilemma faced by Wikipedia editors in the field: contributing information to Wikipedia can be individually costly, but is socially efficient.
  
  See also the remarks in the review regarding reciprocity and altruism (I guess I could have made the connection to "prosocial" more explicit there). Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC) (Tilman)[reply]
  Then someone needs to come up with a better word for the concept. To the extent I write here it's to satisfy my own interests, I'm happy for any benefit to anyone else and also consider that secondary. From having been to meetups, I suspect I'm not the only one who thinks that way. Not to attack the concept, for sure, if I had some better name for it that I could think of right now I'd suggest it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However it was not possible in time to find a way to strictly preserve anonymity and assign legal copyright. Surely 'legal copyright' exists, regardless of the anonymity of the contributor, and of the normal conventions of academia. Are there no mechanisms for recognizing the rights of anonymous contributors, given the political hostilities that some academic (and even Wikipedian) publishing generates?-- Verbarson ^talk_edits 20:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent data

I'm curious about this persistent data research. I've posted a query on the relevant page on meta Meta:Research_talk:Content_persistence#Static_v_changing_information, but I'd be interested if the people doing the research allowed for the popularity of unfolding topics on Wikipedia as opposed to settled ones. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]