On 07/16/11 4:42 PM, Dan Dascalescu wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 02:28, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net 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
On 27 July 2011 08:34, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net 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:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 9:08 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/07/15/%e2%80%9crate-this-page%e2%80%9d-is-coming-to-the-english-wikipedia/
snip
While these initial results are certainly encouraging, we need to
assess whether these editors are, in fact,
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, that is one
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:
On 27/07/2011, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com 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
(* 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
