Mario Beric, University of Zagreb, Croatia mario.beric@fer.hr [student]
Tomislav Lipic,
University of Zagreb, Croatia tomislav.lipic@fer.hr [student]
Ranko Miklin,
University of Zagreb, Croatia ranko.miklin@fer.hr [student]
Wolfgang Freiler, VRVis Research Center, Vienna, Austria freiler@VRVis.at[PhD student]
Zoltan Konyha, VRVis Research Center,
Vienna, Austria konyha@VRVis.at
[PhD student]
Kresimir Matkovic, VRVis Research Center, Vienna, Austria matkovic@VRVis.at [Faculty advisor] [PRIMARY
contact]
Denis Gracanin, Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, USA gracanin@vt.edu [Faculty
advisor]
Student team: YES
1.
A custom C# application for parsing
the edits text file into a .csv file containing all
the relevant information, such as time of the edits, usernames, page size, page
size change, elapsed time, etc.
2.
ComVis application, used to
visualize data in the .csv file, mostly user edits
frequency and size change.
ComVis was developed at VRVis research center (http://www.vrvis.at). ComVis reads the dataset
from a csv file. Once read and stored user can select
one of more views (2D or 3D scatter plot, histogram, pie charts and myriad of
others) to represent attributes of the dataset. Besides scalar attributes as
usual in information visualization, ComVis supports function graphs as
attributes as well. All views are linked and simple and composite brushing is
supported. Sessions can be saved to avoid re-reading of the dataset, to store
view set-up, and to easily exchange analysis steps with peers or create reports
for end customers.
3.
A text editor (Notepad++) for
parsing edits for legibility and reading the comments
Two Page Summary: NO
ANSWERS:
Wiki-1:
What are the factions represented in the edit pages and who are its members? In
other words, describe the groups and their members based on their editing
changes.
GROUP
|
Names
|
Paraiso protestors
|
Absalon; Alejandrosanchez; Alejo; Honoratas;
Molotover; Rosamaria
|
Paraiso critics
|
DailosTamanca;
Rm99
|
Paraiso apologists
|
RyogaNica; VictoriaV; Amado; Sara;
Agustin
|
|
|
|
Detailed Answer:
As a starting point, we used ComVis to visualize page size change
through time (Link). While most edits were
approximately the same size, there were some that stuck out. We could see there
were periods of drastic reduction in page size, followed by return to the state
before the change. When extracting those edits in text format, and comparing
them to the original edits file, those edits were identified as vandalizing
attempts. When reverting those edits, users would usually refer to them as
such. Also, reading the comments in those edits, we could get the iead of what the article was changed to say, e.g.: 'Paraiso believes that humans were no better than crap', 'Paraiso: A made up religion that celbrities
use to get attention.', 'is stupid you idiots', etc. There are more protestors
than those named here, but they are identified only by their IP address, which
aren't very useful in this analysis, as they provide no true identity.
Some changes were harder to identify as negative. Following more active
users, it was noticed that some of them make edits which are often identified
as "POV pushing". They have a negative opinion of Paraiso,
but express it more subtly. Their changes aren't big, but reading comments
following them, it is apparent they are constantly expressing their opinion.
There are also intervals where they participate in an "edit war" with other
users, making changes to a certain topic, back and forth. Heavily edited topics
are mostly regarding home-schooling for girls, and recognizing Paraiso as a religion. Rm99 was very active in discussions,
criticizing Paraiso's religious aspect and Catalano's
leadership, even making a comparison to Scientology.
Looking at the histogram of number of changes per user (Link), those most active, but not already
identified as protestors nor critics, do not show any explicit signs of support
or criticism of Paraiso. In their comments, they
often cite the lack of evidence, reference, or objectivity when making changes
to the article, or reverting other's edits. While it's a stretch calling them
apologists, when they reference others by name, some calling their changes
ridiculous, it does look like they don't share their opinion, even it's their
duty to be unbiased. Reading their edits, it was noticed that they not only
make the most changes, but also add a lot of content and sources, which makes
it look like they're very familiar with the subject matter, especially when
invoking Catalano's speeches and Manifesto's content ("F did mention his
influences in plenty of times, specialy during the
Miami lectures", "Home schooling for girls - details added, there is clear
rationale stated in the Manifesto"). If we suppose that some of those are
members of Paraiso, it is easy for them to hide
behind the cover of objectivity (which they often claim to enforce), as there
are very little (if any) evidence of Paraiso's
immorality or illegality. Also, there are a lot of wiki
moderators who really are just trying to keep the article factual, but
sometimes it's hard to tell who belongs where, because of the very nature of
the problem and the medium used to express opinion.
Wiki-2: Is the Paraiso movement involved
in violent activities?
YES
List of wiki edits providing evidence
# (cur) (last) 03:16, 19 September 2006 Alphanzo
(Talk | contribs) m (moved Paraiso
to GUNNED DOWN SIX DOCTORS AND NURSES IN COLD BLOOD)
# (cur) (last) 11:58, 18 November 2006 Amado (Talk | contribs)
(114,196 bytes) (Deleted false statement. A person can only be declared afther it has been proven in a Justicia
Juicio that he commited a
high crime. Intro to C. Ethics 1998 is no longer used refer to 2006 edition
only)
# (cur) (last) 11:38, 18 November 2006 Amado (Talk | contribs)
(114,411 bytes) (?Ethics in Paraiso - Created
subsection for Criticisms of Paraiso Ethics)
Short Answer:
Though the first edits was recognized as article vandalism, there is no
evidence making that statement true or false. However, the possibility exists, and
if Paraiso is involved in violent activities, they
wouldn't write about it on this page, and those who want to expose them have
little option but to make these extreme and unprofessional edits.
The second edit doesn't mention what was stated, but even a possibility
of crime shows that there could be a cause for alarm. Lack of evidence,
however, prevents any conclusion.
Throughout the edits, sections were regularly added and removed, but
those talking about ethics show that there was some suspicion about
questionable acitvities and a possible crime. Nothing
certain, but several people contributed to that section before removal, and
until some proofs are found, this remains speculative.
