(* cross-posting *)
We are glad to announce the inaugural issue of the Wikimedia Research
Newsletter [1], a new monthly survey of recent scholarly research about
Wikimedia projects. This is a joint project of the Signpost [2] and the
Wikimedia Research Committee [3] and follows the publication
>
> The average is not very trustworthy. But the bar graph of how many
> people have actually voted each score is a bit more interesting. If
> it's bimodal, with two peaks, then that often tells you something.
>
> But the tool doesn't currently give you that, it probably should.
>
Yeh.. this why m
On 27/07/2011, Thomas Morton wrote:
> The issue I've noted is that it is being used as a "warfare" tool on
> controversial articles. I've not seen it mentioned on a talk page yet; but
> one contentious article (on a subject with a large online following,
> entrenched *readers* on either side of th
>
> I'm cynical about this article feedback system for several reasons,
> chiefly the worry that it could exacerbate the templating trend of
> commenting on lots of articles rather than actually improving a few.
>
>
I'm also slightly circumspect about the idea (though not outright opposed or
anythi
Actually there are a number of other tests we need to run before we
know whether Article Rating really is a net positive or a net
negative.
I hoped they would compare the 100,000 with a control sample to see
which gets more edits:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Thread:Talk:Article_feedback/Is_thi
On 27/07/2011 08:49, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> On 07/26/11 3:13 AM, Charles Matthews wrote:
>> On 20/07/2011 10:17, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>> I missed reading this thread when it was active, but my own estimate of
>>> what still needs to be done in historical biographies alone is quite
>>> high.
>> Yes
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 9:08 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/07/15/%e2%80%9crate-this-page%e2%80%9d-is-coming-to-the-english-wikipedia/
> "While these initial results are certainly encouraging, we need to
> assess whether these editors are, in fact, improving Wikipedia
On 27 July 2011 08:34, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> On 07/16/11 4:42 PM, Dan Dascalescu wrote:
>> After rating an article, there is this link asking "Did you know you
>> could edit this page".
> Just saying that is not enough to inspire people to edit.
It turns out it is:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/
On 07/26/11 3:13 AM, Charles Matthews wrote:
> On 20/07/2011 10:17, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>> I missed reading this thread when it was active, but my own estimate of
>> what still needs to be done in historical biographies alone is quite
>> high.
> Yes, that is one area where the material seems avail
On 07/16/11 4:42 PM, Dan Dascalescu wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 02:28, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>> On 07/14/11 5:56 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
>>> Do we have stats yet that measure whether this is encouraging editing,
>>> or diverting even more people from improving the pedia to critiquing
>>>
On 07/20/11 4:23 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>> I missed reading this thread when it was active, but my own estimate of
>> what still needs to be done in historical biographies alone is quite
>> high.
> I agree, but some level of selectivity is ne
11 matches
Mail list logo
