This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 4 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fishnchips100, Kelly Matthews Language and Law 2020.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm interested in quantifying the style differences between paid and non-paid editors. My thesis is that paid editors have a particular writing style. Let's call it the PR style. Whereas non-paid editors have a different style. Let's call it the "encyclopedic style". We might test a third set of data, actual press releases, to see if "PR style" is actually closer to "press releases" than to "encyclopedic style." Data from press releases and from non-paid editors will be easy to find. There is also some data from editors who have been kicked out for paid editing, or declared their paid editing. The "declared" group might be slightly different (they aren't hiding in the shadows). Any help appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Stylometry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
In recent years this section has become more a place where stylometricians highlight their own work, instead of being a place where really important cases are discussed. One of the most famous stylometric use cases needs to be added yet, but I don't have the time to do it at the moment. The Federalist Papers. First studied with stylometric tools (as far as I know) by Frederick Mosteller and David L. Wallace (Reading, Addison-Wesley, 1964) and since then repeatedly. A section on criticism of stylometry is missing yet and in the case studies famous cases where early proponents of stylometry were famously wrong, for example Andrew Morton whose method, qsum, was debunked in later years but used in some cocur cases before. FJannidis (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
This may be interesting to someone:
Evert, Stefan; Proisl, Thomas; Jannidis, Fotis; Reger, Isabella; Pielström, Steffen; Schöch, Christof; Vitt, Thorsten (2017-12-01). "Understanding and explaining Delta measures for authorship attribution". Digital Scholarship in the Humanities. 32 (suppl_2): ii4–ii16. doi:10.1093/llc/fqx023. ISSN 2055-7671.
I haven't finished reading it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)