On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 9:53 AM, WereSpielChequers < [email protected]> wrote:
> Re other dimensions or heuristics: > > Very few articles are rated as Featured, and not that many as Good, if you > are going to use that rating > system<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment>I'd > suggest also including the lower levels, and indeed whether an article > has been assessed and typically how long it takes for a new article to be > assessed. Uganda for example has 1 Featured article, 3 Good Articles and > nearly 400 unassessed on the English language > Wikipedia<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UGANDA#Recognized_content> > . > > For a crowd sourced project like Wikipedia the size of the crowd is > crucial and varies hugely per article. So I'd suggest counting the number > of different editors other than bots who have contributed to the article. > Except why would this be something that would be an indicator of quality? I've done an analysis recently of football player biographies where I looked at the total volume of edits, date created, total number of citations and total number of pictures and none of these factors correlates to article quality. You can have an article with 1,400 editors and still have it be assessed as a start. Indeed, some of the lesser known articles may actually attract specialist contributors who almost exclusively write to one topic and then take the article to DYK, GA, A or FA. The end result is you have articles with low page views that are really great that are maintained by one or two writers. >Whether or not a Wikipedia article has references is a quality dimension you might want to look at. At least on EN it is widely assumed to >be a measure of quality, though I don't recall ever seeing a study of the relative accuracy of cited and uncited Wikipedia information. Yeah, I'd be skeptical of this overall though it might be bad. The problem is you could get say one contentious section of the article that ends up fully cited or overcited while the rest of the article ends up poorly cited. At the same time, you can get B articles that really should be GAs but people have been burned by that process so they just take it to B and left it there. I have heard this quite a few time from female Wikipedians operating in certain places that the process actually puts them off. -- twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
