Conflicts in Wikipedia now modelled by statistical physicists

Feb 20, 2013
Conflicts in Wikipedia now modelled by statistical physicists
A network visualisation of editorial wars on the "Anarchism" article in Wikipedia. Dots represent editors, and lines show the disagreement between pairs of editors leading the to "reversion" each others' contribution. The few most active editors (large dots) are the most active warriors with heavy interactions (thick lines).

Information and communication technology has enabled us to solve complex problems in collaboration across the world. Everything from wiki-based platforms to open software development all the way to the experiments in CERN has benefited from advances in ICT. Not only have unprecedented forms of synergy emerged, but also inevitable clashes of opinions between large numbers of individuals.

in Aalto University Department of and Computational Science have succeeded in mathematically modelling the dynamics of the birth and persistence of conflicts and their resolution in the . The article presenting the study has now been published in the journal .

How Wikipedia editors dissent and come together

The group's model describes the spontaneous dynamics of the clashes of opinions in Wikipedia in three types of scenarios. Firstly, it shows how the increasing number of new editors to an article gives rise to controversy. The model also accounts for different levels of tolerance in editors' sensitivity towards certain topics. Moreover, it captures states of uninterrupted controversy where sensitive contributors cannot stand even small deviations from their opinions.

Eventually even strongly opposing views converge over time, even without direct interaction between dissenting contributors. The shared medium takes care of this.

"The presence of the Wikipedia article itself brings the opinions of individuals together and helps the convergence process. Without an article, on which to work collectively, groups with different opinions could stay separate and ignore each other," explains Gerardo Iñiguez, in the group and in Aalto University Department of Biomedical Engineering and .

Modelling the Darwinian wonder of human collaboration

Modelling cooperation in Wikipedia comes down to a central issue of interest in contemporary physics: the competition of local and global interactions in systems of collective phenomena. It exists everywhere from chemical reactions to the formation of sand dunes.

"Usually sand grains only collide with neighbouring grains, but wind can project them into the air and make them hit faraway grains. This long-range global interaction creates a ripple pattern that does not appear in the absence of wind," compares Iñiguez.

The group's model follows ideas in the same spirit.

"In Wikipedia local interactions occur between editors modifying their opinions, while global interactions are those of the editors with an article. In the presence of an article a collective behaviour appears – conflict followed by consensus – not unlike in chemical synchronisation and sand ripples.
"

Efficiency in collaborative value production

The group sees great potential in the model to help understand value production in collaborative environments. With further refinements, they seek to manage and modify the mechanisms of editorial processes and tackle the complexity of massive cooperation in Wikipedia.

"We could capture the heterogeneity among editors and their different areas of interest, attitudes and tolerance levels, and also the hierarchy between editors. In our model all agents are the same, but in Wikipedia some editors have more privileges, usually based on their experience."

"We could explain the recruitment and the dropping out of editors, or the promotion process of editors and the ways they gain public authority."

Explore further: Researchers find first direct evidence of 'spin symmetry' in atoms

More information: Physical Review Letters: 

Opinions, Conflicts and Consensus: Modeling Social Dynamics in a Collaborative Environment. prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v110/i8/e088701

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Wikipedia losing editors, study says

Jan 04, 2013

Wikipedia, one of the world's biggest websites, is losing many of its English-language editors, crippling its ability to keep pace with its mission as a source of knowledge online, a study says.

Researchers reveal Wikipedia gender biases

Aug 11, 2011

Computer science researchers in the University of Minnesota's College of Science and Engineering are leading a team that has confirmed a substantial gender gap among editors of Wikipedia and a corresponding gender-oriented ...

Report claims Wikipedia losing editors in droves

Nov 30, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- The findings of a Spanish study claiming that Wikipedia's editors are leaving at an alarming rate have been refuted by the Wikimedia Foundation and by Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales.

Recommended for you

On the hunt for dark matter

2 minutes ago

New University of Adelaide Future Fellow Dr Martin White is starting a research project that has the potential to redirect the experiments of thousands of physicists around the world who are trying to identify the nature ...

Water window imaging opportunity

18 hours ago

Ever heard of the water window? It consists of radiations in the 3.3 to 4.4 nanometre range, which are not absorbed by the water in biological tissues. New theoretical findings show that it is possible to ...

User comments : 2

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Job001
1 / 5 (1) Feb 20, 2013
Love it! Knowledge becomes statistical rather than tribalist. Statistical physics has support in actualism with low entropy observed reality models rather than local high entropy false ideality.
HannesAlfven
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 21, 2013
Given that wikipedia was not actually designed to document controversies, the observation that there are numerous perpetual raging controversies on wikipedia would seem to suggest that for many concepts, we should be going out of our way to document the controversies themselves. Much of the value of the Internet has been in its ability to deliver content at near-zero financial cost. Traditional encyclopedias were designed for a world where this was not possible, so one wonders why we're still catering to the most popular worldview, as if there is cost to the creation and transmission of the extra data involved with documenting multiple worldviews. If Amazon.com only sold the most popular books, they'd lose more than half of their revenues. Wikipedia's failure to facilitate the documentation of controversy lends a false sense of certainty for many domains which are inherently ill-structured and data-starved.