Many applications increasingly employ information extraction and integration (IE/II) programs to infer structures from unstructured data. Automatic IE/II are inherently imprecise. Hence such programs often make many IE/II mistakes, and thus can significantly benefit from user feedback. Today, however, there is no good way to automatically provide and process such feedback. When finding an IE/II mistake, users often must alert the developer team (e.g., via email or Web form) about the mistake, and then wait for the team to manually examine the program internals to locate and fix the mistake, a slow, error-prone, and frustrating process.

Wikipedia 1 is a very large and successful Web 2.0 example. As the number of Wikipedia articles and contributors grows at a very fast pace, there are also increasing disputes occurring among the contributors. Disputes often happen in articles with controversial content. They also occur frequently among contributors who are "aggressive" or controversial in their personalities. In this paper, we aim to identify controversial articles in Wikipedia. We propose three models, namely the Basic model and two Controversy Rank (CR) models. These models draw clues from collaboration and edit history instead of interpreting the actual articles or edited content. While the Basic model only considers the amount of disputes within an article, the two Controversy Rank models extend the former by considering the relationships between articles and contributors. We also derived enhanced versions of these models by considering the age of articles. Our experiments on a collection of 19,456 Wikipedia articles shows that the Controversy Rank models can more effectively determine controversial articles compared to the Basic and other baseline models

Wikipedia has grown to be the world largest and busiest free encyclopedia, in which articles are collaboratively written and maintained by volunteers online. Despite its success as a means of knowledge sharing and collaboration, the public has never stopped criticizing the quality of Wikipedia articles edited by non-experts and inexperienced contributors. In this paper, we investigate the problem of assessing the quality of articles in collaborative authoring of Wikipedia. We propose three article quality measurement models that make use of the interaction data between articles and their contributors derived from the article edit history. Our B asic model is designed based on the mutual dependency between article quality and their author authority. The P eer R eview model introduces the review behavior into measuring article quality. Finally, our P rob R eview models extend P eer R eview with partial reviewership of contributors as they edit various portions of the articles. We conduct experiments on a set of well-labeled Wikipedia articles to evaluate the effectiveness of our quality measurement models in resembling human judgement.

Using open source Web editing software (e.g., wiki), online community users can now easily edit, review and publish articles collaboratively. While much useful knowledge can be derived from these articles, content users and critics are often concerned about their qualities. In this paper, we develop two models, namely basic model and peer review model, for measuring the qualities of these articles and the authorities of their contributors. We represent collaboratively edited articles and their contributors in a bipartite graph. While the basic model measures an article's quality using both the authorities of contributors and the amount of contribution from each contributor, the peer review model extends the former by considering the review aspect of article content. We present results of experiments conducted on some Wikipedia pages and their contributors. Our result show that the two models can effectively determine the articles' qualities and contributors' authorities using the collaborative nature of online communities