Difference between vandal fighting with vs. without tools

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Difference between vandal fighting with vs. without tools

Haifeng Zhang
Hi all,

This might be a known fact already.

Does it take less time (on average) for an editor to identify a vandalistic edit when using counter-vandalism tools, e.g., Huggle or STiki? If so, what features of these tools support such decision?


Thanks for your time,

Haifeng Zhang
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Difference between vandal fighting with vs. without tools

Aaron Halfaker-2
This doesn't answer your question directly, but it provides a temporal view
into quality control tools:
https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfaker/publications/When_the_Levee_Breaks/geiger13levee-preprint.pdf

TL;DR: ClueBot NG reverts vandalism within 5 seconds, people using Huggle
review within ~30s, and people reverting manually take minutes to days to
remove damage.

Also, we can see that when ClueBot NG is down, the median time to reversion
goes up substantially.

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 11:19 AM Haifeng Zhang <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> This might be a known fact already.
>
> Does it take less time (on average) for an editor to identify a
> vandalistic edit when using counter-vandalism tools, e.g., Huggle or STiki?
> If so, what features of these tools support such decision?
>
>
> Thanks for your time,
>
> Haifeng Zhang
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Difference between vandal fighting with vs. without tools

WereSpielChequers-2
In reply to this post by Haifeng Zhang
Most of the vandalism I deal with nowadays I pick up when I am typo fixing.
I rarely check the same typo as frequently as once a fortnight, so a lot of
the vandalism I find is from over a week ago. That means it has got past
several layers of defences, including the watchlisters  (watch lists
default to 7 days).

But when in the past i have been active at recent changes I have honed in
on edits by editors with redlinked talkpages.If they made a good edit I'd
welcome them, if it was vandalism I'd warn them. Cluebot and users of
Huggle and Stiki are great at watching for edits by accounts and people who
have previously been warned, and if you are editing manually you are
wasting time trying to compete with them. But someone with a redlinked
talkpage is either a goodfaith editor, or a sufficiently sneaky vandal not
to be picked up by cluebot and the like.

On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 17:19, Haifeng Zhang <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> This might be a known fact already.
>
> Does it take less time (on average) for an editor to identify a
> vandalistic edit when using counter-vandalism tools, e.g., Huggle or STiki?
> If so, what features of these tools support such decision?
>
>
> Thanks for your time,
>
> Haifeng Zhang
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l