To answer your point about basic categorisation of the nature of edits I
have two words for you: Revision Scoring
As Adam Wight pointed out at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Revision_scoring_as_a_service#Perpetuating_bias
the Mediawiki system doesn't allow the editor to
*Subject:* [Wiki-research-l] The Wikimedia Research Newsletter 5(7) is out
The July 2015 issue of the Wikimedia Research Newsletter is out:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/03/research-newsletter-july-2015/
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2015/July
In this issue
James said:
revision scoring as a service will
not actually categorize the nature of what it is learning.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Labels/Edit_quality We're
almost ready to train and deploy a model with some nuance in it's
prediction based on the *reason* that something
...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
mass...@ymail.com
Sent: Tuesday, 4 August 2015 6:18 AM
To: Wikimedia Research Mailing List wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wiki-research-l] The Wikimedia Research Newsletter 5(7) is out
The July 2015 issue of the Wikimedia Research Newsletter is out
Of *
mass...@ymail.com
*Sent:* Tuesday, 4 August 2015 6:18 AM
*To:* Wikimedia Research Mailing List wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
*Subject:* [Wiki-research-l] The Wikimedia Research Newsletter 5(7) is out
The July 2015 issue of the Wikimedia Research Newsletter is out:
https
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] The Wikimedia Research Newsletter 5(7) is out
Hi Kerry,
IMO, edit count is a mediocre indicator of an editor's added value to
Wikimedia. I think that more prominent display of more sophisticated
measures for evaluating the value of an editor's contributions would
The July 2015 issue of the Wikimedia Research Newsletter is out:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/03/research-newsletter-july-2015/
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2015/July
In this issue:
1 Wikipedia as an example of collective intelligence
2 #Wikipedia and Twitter
3
