Mediaboss Marketing

Humans usually cool down after a few days, but the bots might continue for years, said a researcher. Some conflicts only ended when one or other bot was taken out of action. Photograph: Nicole Wilder/Syfy/NBCU/Getty Images

For many it is no more than the first port of call when a niggling question raises its head. Found on its pages are answers to mysteries from the fate of male anglerfish, the joys of dorodango, and the improbable death of Aeschylus.

But beneath the surface of Wikipedia lies a murky world of enduring conflict. A new study from computer scientists has found that the online encyclopedia is a battleground where silent wars have raged for years.

Since Wikipedia launched in 2001, its millions of articles have been ranged over by software robots, or simply bots, that are built to mend errors, add links to other pages, and perform other basic housekeeping tasks.

In the early days, the bots were so rare they worked in isolation. But over time, the number deployed on the encyclopedia exploded with unexpected consequences. The more the bots came into contact with one another, the more they became locked in combat, undoing each others edits and changing the links they had added to other pages. Some conflicts only ended when one or other bot was taken out of action.

The fights between bots can be far more persistent than the ones we see between people, said Taha Yasseri, who worked on the study at the Oxford Internet Institute. Humans usually cool down after a few days, but the bots might continue for years.

The findings emerged from a study that looked at bot-on-bot conflict in the first ten years of Wikipedias existence. The researchers at Oxford and the Alan Turing Institute in London examined the editing histories of pages in 13 different language editions and recorded when bots undid other bots changes.

They did not expect to find much. The bots are simple computer programs that are written to make the encyclopedia better. They are not intended to work against each other. We had very low expectations to see anything interesting. When you think about them they are very boring, said Yasseri. The very fact that we saw a lot of conflict among bots was a big surprise to us. They are good bots, they are based on good intentions, and they are based on same open source technology.

While some conflicts mirrored those found in society, such as the best names to use for contested territories, others were more intriguing. Describing their research in a paper entitled Even Good Bots Fight in the journal Plos One, the scientists reveal that among the most contested articles were pages on former president of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf, the Arabic language, Niels Bohr and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

One of the most intense battles played out between Xqbot and Darknessbot which fought over 3,629 different articles between 2009 and 2010. Over the period, Xqbot undid more than 2,000 edits made by Darknessbot, with Darknessbot retaliating by undoing more than 1,700 of Xqbots changes. The two clashed over pages on all sorts of topics, from Alexander of Greece and Banqiao district in Taiwan to Aston Villa football club.

Another bot named after Tachikoma, the artificial intelligence in the Japanese science fiction series Ghost in the Shell, had a two year running battle with Russbot. The two undid more than a thousand edits by the other on more than 3,000 articles ranging from Hillary Clintons 2008 presidential campaign to the demography of the UK.

The study found striking differences in the bot wars that played out on the various language editions of Wikipedia. German editions had the fewest bot fights, with bots undoing others edits on average only 24 times in a decade. But the story was different on the Portuguese Wikipedia, where bots undid the work of other bots on average 185 times in ten years. The English version saw bots meddling with each others changes on average 105 times a decade.

The findings show that even simple algorithms that are let loose on the internet can interact in unpredictable ways. In many cases, the bots came into conflict because they followed slightly different rules to one another.

Yasseri believes the work serves as an early warning to companies developing bots and more powerful artificial intelligence (AI) tools. An AI that works well in the lab might behave unpredictably in the wild. Take self-driving cars. A very simple thing thats often overlooked is that these will be used in different cultures and environments, said Yasseri. An automated car will behave differently on the German autobahn to how it will on the roads in Italy. The regulations are different, the laws are different, and the driving culture is very different, he said.

As more decisions, options and services come to depend on bots working properly together, harmonious cooperation will become increasingly important. As the authors note in their latest study: We know very little about the life and evolution of our digital minions.

Earlier this month, researchers at Googles DeepMind set AIs against one another to see if they would cooperate or fight. When the AIs were released on an apple-collecting game, the scientists found that the AIs cooperated while apples were plentiful, but as soon as supplies got short, they turned nasty. It is not the first time that AIs have run into trouble. In 2011, scientists in the US recorded a conversation between two chatbots. They bickered from the start and ended up arguing about God.

See the rest here:
Study reveals bot-on-bot editing wars raging on Wikipedia's pages - The Guardian

By Logan Stanley, Staff Writer February 23, 2017 Filed under News

Share on Facebook

Share via Email

On Feb. 15, EWU Libraries hosted a Wikipedia editing event that tasked students, faculty and staff with the assignment of constructing an entry about the EWU fires into the websites database.

Referred to as an edit-a-thon, it is the second rendition of the event and is organized by EWUs Education Librarian, James Rosenzweig.

Its a chance for us to choose something about Easterns history that isnt covered on Wikipedia and to use the resources we have in the library, in our archives, special collections to add material to Wikipedia, Rosenzweig said, who has been an administrator at Wikipedia since August 2003.

This years selection was the Eastern fires that occurred in 1891, 1912 and 1977. Wikipedia has no articles on their site about the fires. Last year, the editing event produced an article on EWUs Red Reese, the coach who has won the most games in the history of EWU.

Those who chose to participate in editing were armed with laptops and supplemented with stacks of papers. Tables were designated for each fire. Scattered across the tables were printed newspaper articles sourced from microfilm: traditional scans of old newspapers, a few books written about EWU, maps of Cheney and State Normal School (EWUs former name) and meeting minutes from the Board of Trustees.

In all, Rosenzweig said we probably got 60-70 different unique resources.

With their laptops and newspaper articles, those editing scoured and poured over the information to add to each specific entry. Dates, times and locations were all checked to ensure accuracy of the new passage being put into Wikipedia.

The first fire that happened in 1891 burned down the entire university which consisted of one building and was then referred to as the State Normal School. The fire was reportedly caused when a leaking hydrant soaked a pile of lime next to the building.

The school was finally rebuilt, but then a portion, a main classroom and an office building, subsequently burned down in 1912. The cause is allegedly unknown but was speculated to be faulty wiring.

Rosenzweig said that after the first two fires, the state of Washington was unsure if they wanted to pay to rebuild the school. Quite literally, EWU came very close to ceasing to exist. Ultimately, the school was rebuilt.

The most recent fire, which happened in 1977, burned down the entire Old Fieldhouse. Rosenzweig said there was already a three sentence article on the 1977 fire, so their intentions were to add onto the existing material. As of now, all three fires have Wikipedia entries.

The turnout was stronger than last year, with more students already showing up in the first few hours of the event than the totality of the previous year, Rosenzweig said.

One of the participants was EWU graduate student Angel Rios, who has attended both editing events.

It was kind of fun to be in a room doing something Im so passionate about with people who arent necessarily studying history the same way I do, but theyre very interested in what is taking place in the history of the institution, Rios said.

Rios who is also the treasurer of Phi Alpha Theta, EWUs history club was encouraged to come to the event as an aspiring historian. She said she was sure there were more than two fires and wanted to find out for herself.

Looking ahead, the plan is to put on the edit-a-thon again next year, but the topic remains undecided, Rosenzweig said.

See original here:
Eastern Fires: A Wikipedia Editing - The Easterner

Fake news has been, well, in the news a lot lately. But for the world's largest crowdsourced encyclopedia, it's nothing new.

"Wikipedia has been dealing with fake news since it started 16 years ago," notes LiAnna Davis, deputy director of the Wiki Education Foundation.

To combat misinformation, Wikipedia has developed a robust corps of volunteer editors. Anyone can write new entries and scrutinize existing ones for adherence to Wikipedia's rules on sourcing and neutrality. While it's not free of errors or pranks, what results is a resource that 50 million people turn to daily on hundreds of thousands of topics in a few dozen languages.

Today, educators are among those more concerned than ever with standards of truth and evidence and with the lightning-fast spread of misinformation online. And the Wiki Education Foundation, a freestanding nonprofit, is sharing Wikipedia's methods with a growing number of college students, and striking a blow for digital literacy along the way.

The foundation gives professors the technical assistance they need to assign students, instead of writing a research paper, to write a brand-new Wikipedia entry, or expand an existing entry, on any topic in virtually any discipline.

This spring, 7,500 students are expected to participate. Among the many items past students written on are:

Since the program began six years ago, Davis says, students have collectively added more than 25 million words of content to Wikipedia.

Jennifer Malkowski, an assistant professor of film and media studies at Smith College, assigned her class on new media and participatory culture to write and contribute to Wikipedia entries this past fall.

"One of the things they really liked about it was the ability to share knowledge beyond the professor that audience of one," she says. While all Smith students are expected to use good research methods in their classes, knowing that their entries might be rejected outright if they didn't conform to Wikipedia's standards "felt like a higher stake than the difference between a B and an A-minus," she says.

Malkowski will be leading a workshop to help her colleagues, some of whom are less technically minded, learn how to make Wikipedia assignments in their own classes as well.

Davis says many professors report a greater level of effort from their students on Wikipedia assignments. "If you're writing something millions of people are going to read, it's a reason to do a really good job, to go into a library and get a deep understanding of the topic."

Some professors, like Tamar Carroll, an assistant professor of history at Rochester Institute of Technology, see Wikipedia as a way to make previously neglected areas of knowledge more visible. For Carroll, it's women's history. She says a former student recently emailed her to say that her Wikipedia entry on Mary Stafford Anthony, the suffragist and sister of Susan B. Anthony, was "the most meaningful assignment she had" as an undergraduate.

There's another learning opportunity too. Every Wikipedia entry has a "talk" page, where editors discuss changes, and a "view history" page that shows additions and deletions over time.

Peeking behind that curtain, says Malkowski, helps "expose how knowledge is collectively created and how different voices might come to consensus, or not, on a particular topic." Right now, she adds, "is an especially important time to be asking these epistemological questions."

According to the foundation's own survey, 87 percent of university faculty who participated in the program reported an increase in their students' media literacy. By grinding some Internet info-sausage themselves, essentially, they gained a better understanding of what goes into it.

It's an interesting turn of events for Wikipedia, which, as Davis acknowledges, has had a bad rap in academic circles as the lazy student's substitute for real research.

"When I first started going to academic conferences, people would hide and say, 'Don't let my department chair see me,' " talking to you, says Davis. She added that Wikipedia should only be a starting point for a university-level research paper, never a footnoted source.

Read this article:
What Students Can Learn By Writing For Wikipedia : NPR Ed : NPR - NPR

Forbes

How Wikipedia Is Making Kids Dumber Than Ever Four Things To Watch For In Your Cloud Blind Spots Forbes Crowdsourcing is great for helping NASA organize photos or raising money for your band, but not for everything. Cartoon by Shannon Wheeler. See more cartoons: Why Bathrooms With Motion-Activated Lights Is The Worst Idea · Gallery ...

The rest is here:
How Wikipedia Is Making Kids Dumber Than Ever Four Things To Watch For In Your Cloud Blind Spots - Forbes

By Isabella Patta, Staff Writer The Wikipedia Edit-A-Thon is what it sounds like; edit as much content on Wikipedia as possible. The reason? To increase the representation of female contributions to art.

The universitys first Wikipedia Edit-A-Thon will be on Tuesday, March 7, 3-5 p.m., in Library room 321.

Chantelle Swaren, assessment and outreach librarian, said, The intent of the Art+Feminism project is to increase the representation of female contributions to art.

According to the Art+Feminism website, only about 10 percent of women contribute to Wikipedia.

If women arent contributing to the shared knowledge, then it stands to reason that theres going to be under representation in the work that females have produced, Swaren stated.

Just because there isnt a Wikipedia entry about a female artist doesnt mean she isnt doing great work, Swaren said. We want a fair representation of the field.

Kathryn Hargrave, assistant art professor and foundation coordinator, initiated the event at the university. She contacted Emily Thompson, studio librarian, and Chantelle Swaren to host the event at the library.

To prepare students for the Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon, the library hosted four workshops. The last one of the Write and Edit in Wikipedia workshops is on Tuesday, Feb. 21, 10:55-11:40 a.m. in room 201 of the library.

At the Edit-A-Thon, three librarians, the instructor from the workshops and Hargrave will be available to students.

We will help students find information [on artists], categorize different mediums and art disciplines, Swaren said.

In addition, reference books on artists will be available as well.

Art+Feminism is part of the universitys Womens History Month events.

Were doing this for art feminism; its part of womens history month. Its an established event and were doing our part for it, Swaren said. However, in addition to this, students and faculty are encouraged to edit areas besides art.

Swaren stated that Wikipedia is a great toolthe more people share information, the better it becomes, but it also forces citations and facts.

If people are aware of what others are doing, it can inspire them and open up other possibilities, Swaren said.

Art+Feminism began the Edit-A-Thon in 2014. Since then, the event has been held every March around the world. In 2016, 280 events were held across six continents.

Four friends founded Art+Feminism to increase the number of female Wikipedia contributors.

According to the Art+Feminism website, Our feminisms are intersectional and inclusive. We have different perspectives and practices but share the belief that art is fundamental to thriving societies and strive to make visible the lives and work of underrepresented artists.

For more information about Art+Feminism, go to artandfeminism.org.

Addie is a Chattanooga native majoring in Communication with a minor in English: Writing. If she isn't reading or watching movies, some of her favorite pastimes include spending time on the lake, taking way too many photos of her dog, Ripley, chasing after sunsets, and eating pasta salad. To get in touch, email her atjzj659@mocs.utc.edu or tweet her at @mirage_hall.

Read the original:
Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-A-Thon works to increase the representation of female contributions to art - The University Echo