On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[email protected]>wrote:
> Brian J Mingus, 04/06/2010 16:17: > > o Note that G articles are extremely hard to predict and > > should be merged with another quality class. > > Or viceversa this is a useful class because of that, i.e. because gives > infos that an automated algorithm can't give? > > Nemo > Do you have an example of the information that the raters use to classify good articles that I didn't look at? If so then we can automate it and try to classify them. There really is nothing that a human can do that we can't automate in some way. There are a few things that are out of reach right now, such as dependency parsing and discourse analysis including differentiating between clear and grammatically correct prose versus brilliant prose. Those things are already on the horizon, however, and might even be possible. Bottom line is the raters aren't using any sort of consistent methodology to classify the articles, including that they don't even follow their own guidelines nor the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Cheers,
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
