Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-01-01/Recent research: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Fixed a reference. Please see Category:CS1 errors: unsupported parameter.
No edit summary
Line 12: Line 12:
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-article-header-v2
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-article-header-v2
|{{{1|YOUR ARTICLE'S DESCRIPTIVE TITLE HERE<!-- REPLACE THIS-->}}}
|{{{1|YOUR ARTICLE'S DESCRIPTIVE TITLE HERE<!-- REPLACE THIS-->}}}
|By [[User:HaeB|Tilman Bayer]]
|By ...
}}
}}


Line 27: Line 27:
:''Reviewed by ...''
:''Reviewed by ...''


==="How to disagree well: Investigating the dispute tactics used on Wikipedia"===
=== ... ===
[[File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement-en.svg|right|thumb|upright=1.8|Graham's hierarchy of disagreement]]
:''Reviewed by ....''

This paper,<ref>{{Cite conference| conference = Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing| pages = 3824–3837| last1 = Kock| first1 = Christine De| last2 = Vlachos| first2 = Andreas| title = How to disagree well: Investigating the dispute tactics used on Wikipedia| date = December 2022| url = https://preview.aclanthology.org/emnlp-22-ingestion/2022.emnlp-main.252/}}
[https://github.com/christinedekock11/wikitactics Data]</ref> presented earlier this month at the [[Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing]] conference, applies a modified version of [[Paul_Graham_(programmer)#Graham's_hierarchy_of_disagreement|Graham's_hierarchy_of_disagreement]] to classify talk page comments on the English Wikipedia. As explained by the authors:
{{tqb|"[English] Wikipedia recommends the hierarchy of disagreement formulated by Graham (2008) as a guide for constructive dispute resolution [in the [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]] policy]. Graham’s hierarchy posits that there are seven levels of disagreement, ranging from namecalling (at the bottom) to refuting the central point. [...] Despite its popularity, this hierarchy has not been verified empirically."}}
The authors call these "rebuttal tactics", and distinguish them from a second categeory of dispute tactics, "attempts to promote understanding and consensus (referred to as coordination tactics)." Coordination tactics are classified with a separate set of "non-disagreement labels" which is combined from comment types identified in several previous research publications about Wikipedia talk pages (e.g. a paper by Ferschke et al. that was summarized in our March 2012 issue: "[[m:Research:Newsletter/2012/March#Understanding_collaboration-related_dialog_in_Simple_English_Wikipedia|Understanding_collaboration-related_dialog_in_Simple_English_Wikipedia]]").
* "Bailing out" ("An indication that an editor is giving up on a conversation and will no longer engage.")
* "Contextualisation" (where "an editor 'sets the stage; by describing which aspect of the article they are challenging. This does not directly disagree with anyone")
* "Asking questions"
* "Providing clarification"
* "Suggesting a compromise"
* "Coordinating edits" to the article page ("This can signal that a compromise has been found.")
* "Conceding / recanting"
* "I don’t know" (i.e. "Admitting that one is uncertain. This signals that an editor is receptive to the idea that there are unknowns which may impact their argument.")
* "Other"

The authors provide a [https://github.com/christinedekock11/wikitactics dataset] "of 213 disputes (comprising 3,865 utterances) on Wikipedia Talk pages, manually annotated with the dispute tactics employed in the process of resolving a disagreement between editors", allowing multiple labels for each comment ("up to three rebuttal strategies and two
resolution strategies per utterance").

These discussions are drawn from the authors' own "WikiDisputes" dataset, which provides information "which is annotated according to whether the dispute was resolved without the need for a moderator." This allows the researchers to identify relations between specific dispute tactics and the risk of a conversation escalating. For example, they
{{tqb|find that a lower mean rebuttal level in a disagreement is correlated with less constructive dispute resolutions, providing empirical validation of the ordering proposed by Graham (2008) and recommended by Wikipedia to its editors.}}

Futhermore, they examine the effect of personal attacks, finding e.g. that conversations can still recover after a personal attack happens:
{{tqb|"We define recovery in terms of having an utterance labeled as rebuttal level 5 or higher and no further personal attacks. By this definition, half of the disputes were found to recover after a personal attack, indicating
that personal attacks do not necessarily result in conversational failure."}}
Furthermore,
{{tqb|Of the escalated disputes with personal attacks, only 44.3% are found to recover, whereas 59.2% of resolved disputes recover post attack. This indicates that although personal attacks also occur in non-escalated disputes, participants are better adept at moving beyond them.

We further find that immediate retaliation (i.e. a personal attack being followed by another personal attack) occurred in 25.7% of cases. In disputes where at least one personal attack had occurred, the probability that the initial offender will re-offend in the same conversation is 53%, while the probability of another user using a personal attack at some point subsequently is 64%.}}

The study proceeds to use machine learning for automatically classifying talk page comments with these multi-labels. A BERT-based model performed best (according to three different performance metrics), but still struggled with some of the labels:
{{tqb|"The label most frequently correctly predicted is ''coordinating edits'' (111 of 137 cases), which is also the most common label in the training set. The next most correctly predicted label, proportionally, is ''contextualisation'' (75%, or 24 of 32 cases), despite not being a commonly used label. This is likely due to the additional positional
information available to the model, since this label is often applied to the first utterance in a conversation. On the other hand, ''refutation'' and ''refuting the central'' point are never correctly predicted (out of 44 cases), with ''counterargument'' often mistakenly predicted instead."}}

Lastly, they apply this to the separate task of predicting whether a conversation will escalate, already examined in their earlier paper that gave rise to the "WikiDisputes" dataset. Namely, they use "multitask training with escalation as the main task and tactics as the auxilliary task, such that the features that are predictive of dispute tactics are incorporated in the escalation predictions." This improves upon their earlier prediction algorithm, "indicating that knowledge of these dispute tactics is useful for tasks beyond classifying the tactics employed."


===Briefly===
===Briefly===
* See the [[mw:Wikimedia Research/Showcase|page of the monthly '''Wikimedia Research Showcase''']] for videos and slides of past presentations.
* See the [[mw:Wikimedia Research/Showcase|page of the monthly '''Wikimedia Research Showcase''']] for videos and slides of past presentations.
* The Wikimedia Foundation's Research team [https://research.wikimedia.org/report.html published its seventh biannual activity report].
* ...



===Other recent publications===
===Other recent publications===

Revision as of 22:11, 30 December 2022

The Signpost
← Back to Contents
View Latest Issue


Recent research

YOUR ARTICLE'S DESCRIPTIVE TITLE HERE

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Tilman Bayer


A monthly overview of recent academic research about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, also published as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter.


...

Reviewed by ...

...

Reviewed by ...

"How to disagree well: Investigating the dispute tactics used on Wikipedia"

Graham's hierarchy of disagreement

This paper,[1] presented earlier this month at the Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing conference, applies a modified version of Graham's_hierarchy_of_disagreement to classify talk page comments on the English Wikipedia. As explained by the authors:

"[English] Wikipedia recommends the hierarchy of disagreement formulated by Graham (2008) as a guide for constructive dispute resolution [in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policy]. Graham’s hierarchy posits that there are seven levels of disagreement, ranging from namecalling (at the bottom) to refuting the central point. [...] Despite its popularity, this hierarchy has not been verified empirically."

The authors call these "rebuttal tactics", and distinguish them from a second categeory of dispute tactics, "attempts to promote understanding and consensus (referred to as coordination tactics)." Coordination tactics are classified with a separate set of "non-disagreement labels" which is combined from comment types identified in several previous research publications about Wikipedia talk pages (e.g. a paper by Ferschke et al. that was summarized in our March 2012 issue: "Understanding_collaboration-related_dialog_in_Simple_English_Wikipedia").

  • "Bailing out" ("An indication that an editor is giving up on a conversation and will no longer engage.")
  • "Contextualisation" (where "an editor 'sets the stage; by describing which aspect of the article they are challenging. This does not directly disagree with anyone")
  • "Asking questions"
  • "Providing clarification"
  • "Suggesting a compromise"
  • "Coordinating edits" to the article page ("This can signal that a compromise has been found.")
  • "Conceding / recanting"
  • "I don’t know" (i.e. "Admitting that one is uncertain. This signals that an editor is receptive to the idea that there are unknowns which may impact their argument.")
  • "Other"

The authors provide a dataset "of 213 disputes (comprising 3,865 utterances) on Wikipedia Talk pages, manually annotated with the dispute tactics employed in the process of resolving a disagreement between editors", allowing multiple labels for each comment ("up to three rebuttal strategies and two resolution strategies per utterance").

These discussions are drawn from the authors' own "WikiDisputes" dataset, which provides information "which is annotated according to whether the dispute was resolved without the need for a moderator." This allows the researchers to identify relations between specific dispute tactics and the risk of a conversation escalating. For example, they

find that a lower mean rebuttal level in a disagreement is correlated with less constructive dispute resolutions, providing empirical validation of the ordering proposed by Graham (2008) and recommended by Wikipedia to its editors.

Futhermore, they examine the effect of personal attacks, finding e.g. that conversations can still recover after a personal attack happens:

"We define recovery in terms of having an utterance labeled as rebuttal level 5 or higher and no further personal attacks. By this definition, half of the disputes were found to recover after a personal attack, indicating that personal attacks do not necessarily result in conversational failure."

Furthermore,

Of the escalated disputes with personal attacks, only 44.3% are found to recover, whereas 59.2% of resolved disputes recover post attack. This indicates that although personal attacks also occur in non-escalated disputes, participants are better adept at moving beyond them. We further find that immediate retaliation (i.e. a personal attack being followed by another personal attack) occurred in 25.7% of cases. In disputes where at least one personal attack had occurred, the probability that the initial offender will re-offend in the same conversation is 53%, while the probability of another user using a personal attack at some point subsequently is 64%.

The study proceeds to use machine learning for automatically classifying talk page comments with these multi-labels. A BERT-based model performed best (according to three different performance metrics), but still struggled with some of the labels:

"The label most frequently correctly predicted is coordinating edits (111 of 137 cases), which is also the most common label in the training set. The next most correctly predicted label, proportionally, is contextualisation (75%, or 24 of 32 cases), despite not being a commonly used label. This is likely due to the additional positional information available to the model, since this label is often applied to the first utterance in a conversation. On the other hand, refutation and refuting the central point are never correctly predicted (out of 44 cases), with counterargument often mistakenly predicted instead."

Lastly, they apply this to the separate task of predicting whether a conversation will escalate, already examined in their earlier paper that gave rise to the "WikiDisputes" dataset. Namely, they use "multitask training with escalation as the main task and tactics as the auxilliary task, such that the features that are predictive of dispute tactics are incorporated in the escalation predictions." This improves upon their earlier prediction algorithm, "indicating that knowledge of these dispute tactics is useful for tasks beyond classifying the tactics employed."

Briefly


Other recent publications

Other recent publications that could not be covered in time for this issue include the items listed below. Contributions, whether reviewing or summarizing newly published research, are always welcome.

Compiled by ...

"Analyzing Digital Discourses: Between Convergence and Controversy"

From the abstract:[2]

"This study analyses Wikipedia’s sites for negotiating convergence, conflict and identity, concentrating on two aspects. First, convergence and conflict at the macro-level of intercultural comparison are investigated using the example of the construction of concepts of nationalism, citizenship, identity and tribe in their English and German language versions. Second, the English articles serve as a basis to examine the types of convergence and conflict tendencies at the micro-level of the Talk-section."

From the paper's section on talk pages:

"[...] in our data, criticism of content (81 instances/31% of all 259 conflictual codings) is the most frequent conflictual category [...], followed by general metapragmatic criticism concerning clarity and more general stylistic features [...], metapragmatic criticism related to Wikipedia's principles (each comprising about half of the total of 81 metapragmatic tokens), or a mixture of both [...].

Giving reasons for disagreeing is the mitigating strategy used most frequently in all for Talk1-sections, followed by suggesting, inviting and hedged imperatives to induce further improvement of an article, agreement and additional explanation to clarify an issue [...]."

"..."

From the abstract:

...

"Building a Public Domain Voice Database for Odia"

From the abstract and paper:[3]

"The pilot detailed in this paper is about creating a large freely-licensed public repository of transcribed speech in the Odia language as such a repository was not known to be available. The strategy and methodology behind this process are based on the OpenSpeaks project [which is hosted on the English Wikiversity at https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/OpenSpeaks ].

"The 'Methodology' section details the process of collecting words [from a dump of Odia Wikipedia], compiling a wordlist [making use of Wikidata lexeme forms to generate additional forms], recording the pronunciation of those words, and uploading the speech data to Wikimedia Commons using Lingua Libre."


References

  1. ^ Kock, Christine De; Vlachos, Andreas (December 2022). How to disagree well: Investigating the dispute tactics used on Wikipedia. Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. pp. 3824–3837. Data
  2. ^ Kleinke, Sonja; Landmann, Julia (2021). "Cross-Cultural Observations on English and German Wikipedia Entries at the Interface of Convergence and Controversy". In Johansson, Marjut; Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa; Chovanec, Jan (eds.). Analyzing Digital Discourses: Between Convergence and Controversy. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 135–162. ISBN 9783030846022. Closed access icon Google Books
  3. ^ Panigrahi, Subhashish (2022-04-25). "Building a Public Domain Voice Database for Odia" (PDF). Companion Proceedings of the Web Conference 2022. WWW '22. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 1331–1338. doi:10.1145/3487553.3524931. ISBN 9781450391306.
Supplementary references and notes:

This page is a draft for the next issue of the Signpost. Below is some helpful code that will help you write and format a Signpost draft. If it's blank, you can fill out a template by copy-pasting this in and pressing 'publish changes': {{subst:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload}}


Images and Galleries
Sidebar images

To put an image in your article, use the following template (link):

[[File:|center|300px|alt=TKTK]]

O frabjous day.
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Filler image-v2
 |image     = 
 |size      = 300px
 |alt       = TKTK
 |caption   = 
 |fullwidth = no
}}

This will create the file on the right. Keep the 300px in most cases. If writing a 'full width' article, change |fullwidth=no to |fullwidth=yes.

Inline images

Placing 

{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Inline image
 |image   =
 |size    = 300px
 |align   = center
 |alt     = Placeholder alt text
 |caption = CAPTION
}}

(link) will instead create an inline image like below

[[File:|300px|center|alt=Placeholder alt text]]
CAPTION
Galleries

To create a gallery, use the following 

<gallery mode = packed | heights = 200px>
|Caption for second image
</gallery>

to create

Quotes
Framed quotes

To insert a framed quote like the one on the right, use this template (link): 

{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Filler quote-v2
 |1         = 
 |author    = 
 |source    = 
 |fullwidth = 
}}

If writing a 'full width' article, change |fullwidth=no to |fullwidth=yes.

Pull quotes

To insert a pull quote like

use this template (link): 

{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Quote
 |1         = 
 |source    = 
}}
Long quotes

To insert a long inline quote like

The goose is on the loose! The geese are on the lease!
— User:Oscar Wilde
— Quotations Notes from the Underpoop

use this template (link): 

{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/block quote
 | text   = 
 | by     = 
 | source = 
 | ts     = 
 | oldid  = 
}}
Side frames

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

A caption

Side frames help put content in sidebar vignettes. For instance, this one (link): 

{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Filler frame-v2
 |1         = Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
 |caption   = A caption
 |fullwidth = no
}}

gives the frame on the right. This is useful when you want to insert non-standard images, quotes, graphs, and the like.

Example − Graph/Charts
Further information: Category:Graph, chart and plot templates
A caption

For example, to insert the {{Graph:Chart}} generated by 

{{Graph:Chart
 |width=250|height=100|type=line
 |x=1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8|y=10,12,6,14,2,10,7,9
}}

in a frame, simple put the graph code in |1= 

{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Filler frame-v2
 |1=
{{Graph:Chart
 |width=250|height=100|type=line
 |x=1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8|y=10,12,6,14,2,10,7,9
}}
 |caption=A caption
 |fullwidth=no
}}

to get the framed Graph:Chart on the right.

If writing a 'full width' article, change |fullwidth=no to |fullwidth=yes.

Two-column vs full width styles

If you keep the 'normal' preloaded draft and work from there, you will be using the two-column style. This is perfectly fine in most cases and you don't need to do anything.

However, every time you have a |fullwidth=no and change it to |fullwidth=yes (or vice-versa), the article will take that style from that point onwards (|fullwidth=yes → full width, |fullwidth=no → two-column). By default, omitting |fullwidth= is the same as putting |fullwidth=no and the article will have two columns after that. Again, this is perfectly fine in most cases, and you don't need to do anything.

However, you can also fine-tune which style is used at which point in an article.

To switch from two-column → full width style midway in an article, insert 

{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-block-end-v2}}
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-block-start-v2|fullwidth=yes}}

where you want the switch to happen.

To switch from full width → two-column style midway in an article, insert 

{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-block-end-v2}}
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-block-start-v2|fullwidth=no}}

where you want the switch to happen.

Article series

To add a series of 'related articles' your article, use the following code

Related articles
Visual Editor

Five, ten, and fifteen years ago
1 January 2023

VisualEditor, endowment, science, and news in brief
5 August 2015

HTTPS-only rollout completed, proposal to enable VisualEditor for new accounts
17 June 2015

VisualEditor and MediaWiki updates
29 April 2015

Security issue fixed; VisualEditor changes
4 February 2015

More articles

Draft namespace, VisualEditor meetings
25 December 2013

Sockpuppet investigations, VisualEditor, Wikidata's birthday, and more
6 November 2013

Last call for Wiki Loves Monuments; Community–WMF tension over VisualEditor
25 September 2013

Making Wikipedia more accessible
4 September 2013

Gallery improvements launch on Wikipedia
28 August 2013

The VisualEditor Beta and the path to change
31 July 2013

Defining consensus; VisualEditor default state; expert and layperson terms in article titles
31 July 2013

VisualEditor in midst of game-changing deployment series
3 July 2013

VisualEditor will "change world history"
12 June 2013

VisualEditor, elections, bots, and more
12 June 2013

The Visual Editor: Where are we now, and where are we headed?
25 March 2013

Visual Editor "on schedule" for July rollout
18 March 2013

Looking ahead to 2013
7 January 2013

The new Visual Editor gets a bit more visual
10 December 2012

Second Visual Editor prototype launches
25 June 2012

Visual editor demo launched, hailed as "most important change to our user experience ... ever"; but elsewhere over-hasty deployments criticised
19 December 2011

Full steam ahead on Visual Editor, the avoidance of lock-breaking and 1.18b1 release
7 November 2011

{{Signpost series
 |type        = sidebar-v2
 |tag         = VisualEditor
 |seriestitle = Visual Editor
 |fullwidth   = no
}}

or 

{{Signpost series
 |type        = sidebar-v2
 |tag         = VisualEditor
 |seriestitle = Visual Editor
 |fullwidth   = yes
}}

will create the sidebar on the right. If writing a 'full width' article, change |fullwidth=no to |fullwidth=yes. A partial list of valid |tag= parameters can be found at here and will decide the list of articles presented. |seriestitle= is the title that will appear below 'Related articles' in the box.

Alternatively, you can use 

{{Signpost series
 |type        = inline
 |tag         = VisualEditor
 |tag_name    = visual editor
 |tag_pretext = the
}}

at the end of an article to create

For more Signpost coverage on the visual editor see our visual editor series.

If you think a topic would make a good series, but you don't see a tag for it, or that all the articles in a series seem 'old', ask for help at the WT:NEWSROOM. Many more tags exist, but they haven't been documented yet.

Links and such
  • News and notes:

By the way, the template that you're reading right now is {{Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue}} (edit). A list of the preload templates for Signpost articles can be found here.

← Previous "Recent research"
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

It's amusing to read the sample discussion and see that

  1. It is a lame dispute about whether it should be "a herb" or "an herb"
  2. That the usage had been flipped before
  3. That the first three editors were Usernameistoosimilar, Deli nk and Jytdog who have all been indefinitely blocked for their sins.

So, the main problem is not where we stand on the tactical hierarchy of argument but whether we should be arguing at all. Wikipedia is infested with dysfunctional and unproductive editors – griefers, grinders, obsessive pedants, fanatics and more. In making mountains out of molehills, they are operating at a different level and this analysis fails to capture this more fundamental issue. As usual, further research is needed...

Andrew🐉(talk) 21:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: While the dispute certainly is lame, the correct reference for the conversation used as a sample is Talk:Fenugreek#A_herb/an_herb_2, which was started by Jytdog off of that previous discussion you linked to, and grew quite a bit more involved than that one (though no more productive, AFAICT). Neither Usernameistoosimilar nor Deli nk seem to have participated. It was basically just Jytdog and Porphyro going back, and forth, and back, and forth, and... well, it's long, is the point. FeRDNYC (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That further discussion takes the lame to another level. And then there's a part 3 in which an edit notice is requested. And now, of course, we are digging deeper with this further derivative discussion...
Looking at the actual article, I notice that it doesn't mention that fenugreek was one of the ingredients in the original herbal formula of the famous Lily the Pink. I must edit the article myself and see what further mayhem ensues. WP:INTODARKNESS...
Andrew🐉(talk) 18:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RIP Andrew Davidson, died on An Hill,[a] 3 January 2023. He will be missed.
  1. ^ SWIDT?
FeRDNYC (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed that link to the source discussion. Thanks! Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, I edited fenugreek to add some details of its use in Lydia E. Pinkham's Vegetable Compound. I had researched this reasonably well, finding a book about the history of the compound which detailed the recipe. I cited this but the entire addition was reverted with the edit summary, "Nonsense and WP:FRINGE". This seems to be name-calling at the bottom level of the hierarchy but so it goes. The next step may be to start an RfC... Andrew🐉(talk) 16:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost is written by editors like you — join in!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-01/Recent_research&oldid=1130578620"