Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-02-05/Recent research


 * This paper from 2011 is a much better analysis of talk page dynamics than that Carnegie Mellon paper. 185.13.106.213 (talk) 07:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but it is based upon a data dump from 2008. Carnegie Mellon has a whole department dedicated to WP. I've been there. Ironically, most do not edit. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  14:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note how the 2011 paper isolated authority citations and opinion changes ("alignment moves") as the primary features (beyond the writing parties, their semantic assertions, etc.) of talk pages. While the CMU paper says as much in section 2 on page 1027, they proceed to focus solely on authority claims in section 5.2.3 on page 1030, along with the other features in section 5.2, but ignore the crucial instance of participants coming into agreement with others. That's a really stark omission and I am sure their analysis would have been stronger if they included it. Do you know the authors? If so, please suggest that if it makes sense to you. 213.86.87.228 (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)