 Hi, welcome to the impromptu translation booth, today done by Stefan and Merle. We just jumped in because there was a shortage of people that actually signed up. So forgive us. This is going to be very spontaneous. Welcome to the 34th KS Communication Congress in Leipzig. We're going to have an introduction of his PhD thesis. W.H.W.P. Walter Höllerer on Wikipedia, the theme of the 34th Congregation Congress really fits well with my lecture with the thematics that are running through the German Wikipedia. Do something. Too bad. Very likely. Who wants to do something against fake news, can support fake news and learns a lot about the way that knowledge is being spread. It's enough to consume Wikipedia, but to be honest, better is the act of participation in it. And participate in making knowledge globally accessible. Walter Höllerer was a professor of German literature and at the two Berlin in 1953 with Hans Bender, he brought out the literature review magazine, Accenture in 1961. He started making the magazine called Spritzsprache in the digital times. He was part of the group 47, which was a group of literates formed after the Reich, which Günter Grass was also part of. One of the meetings of this group happened in Princeton, Renate von Margold was the partner of Walter Höllerer. She was the photographer of lots of the events and gatherings of the group 47. Together Walter Höllerer and Renate von Margold brought international artists to Berlin, like the Living Theatre in 1963 with Peace the Brick happening in Berlin's art university. Also the literature colloquium was founded by him and in 1977 he founded the literature archive in Salzbach Rosenberg in the Oberpfalz. Höllerer was a philologist that today is described by his friends the Höllerer method. I understand by the Höllerer method deconstructing deconstructivism, taking stuff to its pieces and look at these pieces, no generalizations, no patterns that are being applied. Friedrich Knilli on the stairs to the house of Heinrich Mann, he was the founder of media studies at TU Berlin and he is my PhD supervisor and 72 media studies started to be a subject at the TU and Walter Höllerer was an integral part of that. There was forming theories and practical addressing of media and Walter Höllererer was brought out of that tradition. 2008, Professor Knilli already wrote my diploma thesis on Feuchtwangers Wikipedia and Feuchtwanger already reported on the Encyclopedia. Encyclopedia is a gathering, a collection of knowledge and it's a source of making global knowledge accessible. The third chapter of my dissertation gives a number of footnotes on how... So in this Encyclopedia there were a number of not so great articles that had personal anecdotes and readers were surprised and not happy to find these kinds of Encyclopedia. At the Humboldt University everybody can look at the original after registration and looking at the original you can smell the smells from the cellars where it was stored. At the 29th century here be dragons, we had a talk, a talk, Tick started my work on WP. And the sock puppet play explains how sock puppet accounts are used to manipulate Wikipedia articles even without having admin access to Wikipedia. Wikipedia needs five main units to work, the Internet needs power, it does need the Wikipedia software, the Creative Commons license and volunteer writers and finally the foundation. For this examination the open media 44 was an important input and the technical ground work I learned about all the technical stuff like PHP and MySQL. So what parts are we looking at? This is the typical Wikipedia window, everything in red we are not going to look at. The left side menu, the footer. So this is the URL in the German Wikipedia for the Walter Holler article. This is the current state of the article. If you open that article now you find an article that could be part of any large encyclopedia. I'm going to show a video. What I haven't looked at, I have not looked at the various versions of how the versions developed. Here's a short video, an animation of the changes made to this article from 2004 to today. And we can see how the versions get updated and what changes over the course of one year and sometimes you can see the spam being inserted into the page. That is something that can be talked about but I will not talk about that. Let's go back. Where are we now? 2010 James Bridal has looked at the changes in a single Wikipedia article and he printed out 11 volumes of these changes. The Iraq War article has had 12,000 revisions over the course of a number of years. In the menu of every Wikipedia article you can see the version history, version history here in German, and you can look at the various changes between the versions. So I'm calling these edits, are the activities that authors of Wikipedia have made. This is the old view of changes made between versions. So the red one has been added to the article by the author of that version. So between 2013 and 2015 there were 113 changes. The first 10 changes, the third line from the bottom shows the number, shows the time and date of the change have been made by an author identified by his IP address. So with the second change was made by author inquisitiveness. In this new design we can see two views of the changes, and I don't like the amount of information displayed here. As I was collecting data about the WP, the dates and times were not consistent. I believe that is due to daylight saving time. And there were a couple of problems with the applications. There is some confusion about the languages, and since the Wikipedia software is developed in English, the German translation creates some confusion. So in the German version, so in the older German version of the Wikipedia software, the German translation actually said versions and authors, which is more inclusive of the information being displayed. What common... In Wikipedia lets people watch over their shoulders, who actually publicizes the production logs and makes it public and transparent, who is part of this different picture. This text, inclusively alongside 10 links, the author added in 2003, entered as the first text in 2003. The same text is now here, visible in the diff version online. Every edit has metadata, edit date, edit time, the simple changes, big changes, comments and things such as that. From the beginning on, I had a problem with the author that added these. They were a bit rough and tough, and monthly, month after research, I found that he stole from basically other articles that were published in the German newspaper Der Spiegel. Now let's look at the work itself, the thesis itself. I don't want to introduce this very long. It can be downloaded, but not now, but next year, so soon. So this is what it looks like, all the edits, like they are going to be shown in the dissertation. Every edit has its own set of data, and obviously very interesting are the comments below. I'll get into that a bit later. I really don't want to introduce much like edit 43, there was Nazi spam, that a lot of times is not being noticed by users because it's being reedited within a minute. Due to the time, I'm not going to go into this further, but who's interested can download it soon and read it up on that. So back to 2012, there was a big design change on Wikipedia. Since then, everything has a little bit of a tinted blue, and it looks a bit more modern washed out. Some of these new changes were not for the better. The version difference is now a lot more hard to find. WHWP has grown by baby steps with sometimes lengthy periods where there was no activity at all, sometimes a lot of edits over the course of a couple of months. In June 2010, all of a sudden we had a bit of a jump, and with one single edit 71, 2664 words were added, and there was another jump in October, but there weren't really more than 15 edits per year. So a little sketch of Darwin's Tree of Life shows how biology evolves. Here a typical example, a sketch of how database relation work, and here we can see the changes that happen within a Wikipedia page. On the left, the version change, and on the right, the tree that actually shows the dynamics behind the changes and edits that are done. The history of edit is the joke of the work. Every edit was in relation to the date of author, and as much possible we compared the edits of the authors, of other edits that authors did, and tried to come out with patterns and understand patterns. So that generated qualitative material that really tells a story about the Heller article. So we're going to go into the types of accounts that he's identified. So the 89 authors were enriched by whatever else the authors also edited to enrich their profiles, so the account types say a lot about the authors, but they don't really say anything about the actual activities. There's anonymity, there's accounts with anonymous accounts, anonymous accounts, and they really do a lot of work. So for example, there's an anonymous author that used continuously the same IP address, so he really revealed more about himself than a lot of other people who use pseudonyms or real name accounts. So looking into discussions and discussion boards, you can see a lot of patterns and repeated behavior. There's authors who have own websites, there's authors who have own pages about themselves. According to the edit number, I have an author profile in an own chapter from A to Z summarized, and the connection between the key field to the edit table is the edit number WHWP, in this case 84.189.61.50, he's edited twice, edit number 23 and 24. In searching and researching the author profiles, let's look at this one more time. We're going back into the thesis and then we're going to move along. All right, where are we? Edits, where are we? I would love to just show the first, find the first, where is it? Oh, there we go. There it is. No, no, 10 minutes. Time, the authors, there we go. Here it is, standard. It's called 0815. He gave himself this name and he really by that positioned him right in front in the beginning of the chapter of the authors. So it's a very typical set of data. I don't want to go into this deeply due to time, but like all authors are listed with all 89 authors with what they did, the edits they did. There's a lot of data in here that were also generated from somewhere else on the web, but a lot of times it's their actual edits and their contributions to articles. And they say a lot about how the edit in WHWP is supposed to be understood. All right, so here we have the authors with the most edits in WHWP. But the number of edits doesn't really say anything about the quality of edits. Here we can see the authors who entered the most characters on the WHWP, but also that is not saying anything and is revealing about the quality. But the quantitative numbers is interesting to look for the qualitatively interesting edits to find. The most refined filter I pressed this data through was whose author contributed to the life section of the author, the biography section. Underneath there is a list of works and pieces and bibliography and they also give information on Valhalla, but with edit 71 the author Boster interferes with WHWP. So everything that's blue on the right side, you can see all of that is new after his massive attack. WHWP is basically not recognizable anymore. In the section of biography he alters the text to an extent that it seems like there's finally somebody that understands Halera. He adds a lot to the bibliography and the list of works. Before edit 71, a WHWP you could read, even though his poems and novels amongst them, the elephant clock, were rather successful, his attention was more on the critics and publication and support of books. Besides the academic work that was published in his own poems, sorry, I couldn't quickly translate what the quote was reading. So 89 authors over the course of 12 years created what is now the article on Valhalla. Thank you so much to all the authors who contributed to WHWP and who made the fundamentals of my work possible. Applause for the authors. How does quality get created in Wikipedia? The majority of the contributors to WHWP have made only a single edit. This supports the thesis of the many eyes principle and that most of the contributors were actually readers of the article. So something was wrong, something was missing, so that were typical edits. Only a very few of the readers converted to become an author in copyright. So in a previous talk at a free sea, there were one of the interesting aspects was that missing vowels from texts do make the text less readable but it is still readable. And Wikipedia's approach makes it possible to get unbiased information through this principle. This photo was added by two contributors. And according to Professor, they did not know what this picture was about and why was this picture chosen specifically. And my suspicion is that the photo was used because it was the first one that was found that was licensed appropriately. And this is an important thing to remember. When it comes to the quality of Wikipedia. Umberto Ocho started editing the Italian version of Wikipedia about himself because he was unhappy with the quality of the information presented there. I can't, I don't have time to go into the case of Umberto Ocho. He edits 88, 89 and 90. The three authors have started a discussion about the group of 47. It would have been better if they had started discussing that in the article but would have just added a link to the group 47 page. This shows the similarity between database syntax and text syntax. So in a database setup, the structure of the text is only part of the entire structure where a text with attachments is much more amenable to the way humans process information. So to judge the quality of the Walter Heller article, the quality of the users, the qualities of the authors is the center of my work and the quality of expert contributions are also very important. So we have these three qualities that contribute to the quality of the article. So I was able to distinguish between experts about publishing, about writing and about the content matter. I could identify those three types of editors. I could not identify classical editorial roles as... The classical roles do not work in this article. The knowledge that has culminated in this article was spread out over the 89 authors that contributed to this article. That is the end of my presentation about my thesis. This shows the various screen sizes that are available and trying to write a Wikipedia article to fit well for Wikipedia. There were six bots that edited the article. I found that the bots actually did very valuable contributions that helped the structure and the linking. They did not make edits of the content itself. So there is also an article about Walter Heller in Wikidata. In Wikidata bots do most of the work. The Wikidata article about Walter Heller has been online since 2012. So if you would like to learn more, you can look at this URL and you can also download and read my thesis. There are no questions from the internet. Do I still have time? Thank you so much to Frida Bronnam for this interesting talk.