On 26 Mar 2014, at 21:35, Andrew Gray <andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk> wrote:
> <snip> > > It would be great if this sort of rating was being systematically checked - > but at a vague estimate of thirty seconds to scan, grade, and tag, > aggregated across all pages on enwiki, that's about fifteen or twenty > person-years of work to do it as a once-off, much less a rolling process. > > Andrew. > > On 25 March 2014 23:35, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Philippe, >> >> The Public Policy Initiative produced strong validation for the Wikipedia >> 1.0 approach to assessing article quality. Was Amy Roth's research ever >> published, and are there any plans to repeat it with a larger sample size >> etc.? I'd say we're closer than you think to having a good way to measure >> article quality. >> >> Pete >> [[User:Peteforsyth]] There is at present no comprehensive automated tool that can be used to measure article and media file quality. Measuring quantity is easy; quality much more difficult. At the Wikimedia Conference over the weekend I presented some thoughts about a possible software project, to be lead by Wikimedia UK, to tackle this. A review of the presentation, and slides, can be seen at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014/Documentation/24#Michael_Maggs_.28WMUK.29_-_WikiRate:_rating_Wikimedia The WMUK wiki page is here: https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Technology_Committee/Project_requests/WikiRate_-_rating_Wikimedia Comments and feedback are most welcome. In particular, we would like to know whether creating such tools would be considered a useful thing to do by the community. Best regards Michael ____________ Michael Maggs Chair, Wikimedia UK _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
