rfc.sql

Version 4 2018-09-21, 19:18

Version 3 2018-09-01, 21:07

Version 2 2018-09-01, 20:53

Version 1 2018-09-01, 20:43

dataset

posted on 2018-09-21, 19:18 authored by Jane ImJane Im

Dataset of 7,316 Request for Comments that were used for research on earning insights for resolving disputes in a timely manner on Wikipedia, as well as other peer production and and deliberative communities beyond Wikipedia.

The paper on this research "Deliberation and Resolution on Wikipedia: A Case Study of Requests for Comments" has been accepted for CSCW 2018. The abstract is as below.

Resolving disputes in a timely manner is crucial for any online production group. We present an analysis of Requests for Comments (RfCs), one of the main vehicles on Wikipedia for formally resolving a policy or content dispute. We collected an exhaustive dataset of 7,316 RfCs on English Wikipedia over the course of 7 years and conducted a qualitative and quantitative analysis into what issues affect the RfC process. Our analysis was informed by 10 interviews with frequent RfC closers. We found that a major issue affecting the RfC process is the prevalence of RfCs that could have benefited from formal closure but that linger indefinitely without one, with factors including participants' interest and expertise impacting the likelihood of resolution. From these findings, we developed a model that predicts whether an RfC will go stale with 75.3% accuracy, a level that is approached as early as one week after initiation.