On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 5:27 PM, James Salsman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thank you, Sage, for your reply: > > >... I've been chatting with the folks working on this, and they are > actually > > quite close to having a usable API for estimated article quality — which > I'm > > super excited about building into our dashboard. The human part of it > will > > be down the road a bit, but the main purpose there will be to continually > > improve the model by having experienced editors create good ratings data > for > > training the model. But I expect that there won't be much trouble in > finding > > Wikipedians to pitch on that. > > > > I had actually been exploring the idea of setting up a crowdsourcing > system > > where we might pay experienced editors to do before and after ratings for > > student work, but at this point I'm much more enthusiastic about the > machine > > learning approach that the revision-scoring-as-a-service project is > taking — > > since that is easy to scale up and maintain long term. > > I recommend measuring the optimal amount of human input and review. It > is very substantially nonzero if you want to maximize the > encyclopedia's utility function. There is really nobody at the WEF who > wants to try to co-mentor accuracy review? What if there was a cap on > total hours needed. I am sure you wouldn't regret it, but I am also > happy to continue on my own for the time being. I'm definitely interested in better systems for human review — especially for the work of student editors — alongside automated qualtiy estimation tools. It's not a project Wiki Ed has the capacity to take on right now, though. -Sage
_______________________________________________ Education mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
