Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Programming Open Source Wikipedia

Vandalism Detection Contest Sponsored For Wikidata (wsdm-cup-2017.org) 38

Posted by EditorDavid from the Adobe-to-the-rescue dept.
Remember when Bing Maps lost a city because they used bad Wikipedia data? An anonymous Slashdot reader writes: Since knowledge bases like Wikidata are poised to be integrated into all kinds of information systems, wrong facts are not just displayed on Wikidata's pages but may propagate directly to all systems using the knowledge base. Hence, detecting and reverting vandalism and other kinds of damaging edits is an even more important task than on Wikipedia. Recently, German scientists published the first machine learning-based approach on vandalism detection in Wikidata, and now Adobe sponsors a competition on vandalism detection, the WSDM Cup Challenge, awarding $2500 for the best-performing solutions that will also be published open source.
"Given a Wikidata revision, compute a vandalism score denoting the likelihood of this revision being vandalism (or similarly damaging)," read the official rules, pushing for a near real-time solution to be submitted before December 22. And the winners will also be invited to the headquarters of Wikimedia Germany to discuss implenting their solutions.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Vandalism Detection Contest Sponsored For Wikidata More

Vandalism Detection Contest Sponsored For Wikidata

Comments Filter:

  • Vandalism really? (Score:3)

    by Mashiki ( 184564 ) <mashiki@gmail.cBALDWINom minus author> on Saturday September 10, 2016 @01:53PM (#52863259) Homepage

    Wikipedia has a bigger NPOV problem with their articles these days then vandalism. Especially because of people camping, or the variety of meat puppets that banned editors use to push agendas.

    • Wikipedia can be good for looking up things about natural sciences like biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, etc, but for anything else it's often missing information, sometimes deliberately, and in cases where a page manages to not get deleted, it's heavily biased and one sided. Case in point:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      In fact it's almost a miracle that the page even exists as it has met wikipedia's notability standards for years, yet it is often deleted and blocked from being reposted. And then i

      • Case in point:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        Sorry, but I don't see anything wrong with that page. It certainly describes a real phenomena, that is going to get much worse as technology improves, and may even eventually be a threat to humanity's existence. Many guys would be willing to replace their GF with a sexbot. Have you ever seen the TV show "Humans"? Watch a few episodes, and then ask yourself: If you had to chose, would you rather live with Laura or Anita?

        • We'll be killed by flying saucers firing lasers if we don't ban sexbots: https://vimeo.com/12915013 [vimeo.com]

      • According the Wikipedia deletion log, that page was deleted once (in 2007), and the similar page MGTOW was deleted a few times after a contentious debate in 2006/2007. In the end, it is 2016 and the article is there. It seems like the process won?

        I'm not a part of this movement either, but from the little I've gleaned from it on the internet over the years, it was a pretty new thing in 2006 (maybe not the concept, but the 'MGTOW' group/logo/etc.) Maybe the sources back then really did suck, and

        • According the Wikipedia deletion log, that page was deleted once (in 2007), and the similar page MGTOW was deleted a few times after a contentious debate in 2006/2007.

          This aggressive deletionism is the reason I stopped contributing to, and no longer donate to Wikipedia. If you are not interested in a particular topic, then DON'T READ ABOUT IT. But there is no reason to delete it just to spite the people that ARE interested. A paper encyclopedia has to be selective because paper has a significant cost, and shelf space is limited. But an online encyclopedia does not have those constraints. Even if Wikipedia was ten, or even a hundred times bigger, the cost of the disk

  • mod abuse contest?

  • The most reliable database ever created is our scientific knowledge. And it only got that way because of some basic rules: 1. Anyone can do science. 2. Anyone can debate science. 3. All evidence must be repeatable and repeatedly verified. Any database that does not follow scientific methodology will always be susceptible to containing bad data.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Sique ( 173459 )
      Any database will always be susceptible to containing bad data. Even those that follow the scientific methology. Any data is only preliminary, and will be thrown out until better data comes in. What you totally ignore is how to determine which of two conflicting data points is more close to be real. Wikipedia doesn't do research. That's one very important concept of Wikipedia: no original research. If the people doing the original research are losing interest in Wikipedia, or are run over by a bus, Wikipedi
      • You have just stated the biggest issue with Wikipedia: it is not self-correcting. If Wikipedia was started 2000 years ago, it would still state that the Earth was the centre of the universe because all experts agreed with it. New ideas like a solar system would be labelled vandalism.
        • It's not vandalism to publish new research outside of Wikipedia.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Sique ( 173459 )
          Not necessarily. You could have a second article about a heliocentric system, and maybe a third one discussing the merits of a geocentric and a heliocentric system. Just keep the original article about the heliocentric system intact! There is no reason to vandalize it just because you have a second possible description of the events in the sky. In fact, it took about 250 years between Copernicus's de revolutionibus and Isaac Newton's theory of gracvity, which finally allowed the heliocentric system to catch

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by Mashiki ( 184564 )

            Not necessarily. You could have a second article about a heliocentric system, and maybe a third one discussing the merits of a geocentric and a heliocentric system. Just keep the original article about the heliocentric system intact!

            That's a fair point, however under today's rules at wikipedia, along with the cock-gobbling edditors. Your topic on helocentric systems would likely be flagged for deletion because it's non-notable(akin to denialism), or doesn't conform to the ruling form of orthodoxy. The sources regardless of whether or not they're factual, would suddenly be marked as unreliable, even if they had provable baseline statistical models with the peer reviewed data to back it up.

            Wikipedia simply needs to be purged of all edi

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Who needs original research when you can just park on an article and decide what is worthy of being cited or not? Just include whatever citations support your point of view, delete citations you find disagreeable, and throw acronyms and reverts at other editors until they give up.

  • All Wikipedia wants to do is get help in enforcing their left-wing narrative - by considering truth as counter-narrative material that must be purged.

  • My people, the Vandals and their various descendants, had nothing to do with this as a race and feel the summary and implication is beneath the fine people who run Wikipedia. Not even a trigger warning!

  • I've run into this a few times. Make an edit, and some bot comes by and vandalizes it.

  • All Wikipedia wants to do is get help in enforcing their left-wing narrative - by considering truth as counter-narrative material that must be purged.

    Never mind that the SOCJUS contingent of Slashdotters prove my point by modbombing anything that counters their narrative, especially truth.

Slashdot Top Deals

Avoid strange women and temporary variables.

Close