Actually, we're still doing work on whether the KnowledgeGraph stuff is having an impact, or whether it's a problem with the data source, or, or..
On 11 June 2014 14:21, Kerry Raymond <[email protected]> wrote: > My comment on Google Knowledge relates to a presentation in one of > the WMF Metrics meetings and subsequent discussion (all of which can be > seen on video since about 2012): > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings > (Heather, this is a better URL than the one I sent you by accident a > moment ago) > > > > There are agendas but, while they tell you who will be speaking and about > what topic, they don’t provide enough info for me to say which meeting was > the one when they had discussed Google Knowledge as it was probably part of > an agenda item labelled something like “top line metrics”. > > > > I find it’s worth viewing these videos as they give the best insight into > what’s happening at WMF at the moment. And of course there is always a > metrics presentation, discussion of features in development, in beta, > rolled out etc. > > > > Kerry > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Heather Ford [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Wednesday, 11 June 2014 6:53 PM > *To:* [email protected]; Research into Wikimedia content and > communities > *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] Quality on different language version > > > > Totally agree with you, Kerry - that there are *very* different ideas > about what constitutes quality. The large diversity in research about > quality taking very different variables into account is testament to that. > I'm interested in your note about page views after Google Knowledge Graph. > According to these stats http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/SummaryEN.htm. > Page views went up from mid-2012 to beginning of 2013 and then they went > down quite sharply but seem to start rising again at the end of 2013. But > perhaps you're seeing other data? Would love to hear your thoughts! > > > > btw, for those asking about historiography, Brendan Luyt [1] has done some > great work on how Wikipedia represents dominant and alternative > historiographies [e.g. 2]. > > > > And thanks, Finn, for the great work you continue to do with Wikilit :) > > > > Best, > > Heather. > > > > [1] http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=Xhl9P7oAAAAJ&hl=en > > [2] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.21531/full > > > Heather Ford > Oxford Internet Institute <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk> Doctoral Programme > EthnographyMatters <http://ethnographymatters.net> | Oxford Digital > Ethnography Group <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115> > http://hblog.org | @hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa> > > > > > > On 11 June 2014 01:19, Kerry Raymond <[email protected]> wrote: > > Having followed this thread, I am somewhat confused about what is meant by > the term "article quality", even in a single language, yet alone multiple > languages. > > Sticking just to a single language for the moment ... > > Do we mean that the facts presented are correct? That the kings and queens > were born and died on the dates stated? > > Do we mean spelling and grammar is correct? Do we mean some kind of logical > structure? Do we mean some kind of narrative flow that "tells the story" of > the topic in a natural and engaging way? > > Do we mean the use of citations? Do we mean whether the citation used > actually contains information that supports what is said by the text in the > article with which it is associated? > > Do we mean some kind of "completeness" of an article? That is, it has "all" > the information. If so, what do we do if the topic is split across a number > of articles {{main|...}}}? Do we assess the group of articles? And what do > we mean by "all" anyway? > > Do we mean it meets all the WP policies? Notability? Appropriate use of > external links? That the Manual of Style has been carefully followed? > > Or do we mean whether it has been assessed as a stub/start/.../good article > by some review process? > > Whenever I find myself in a discussion about "quality" (on any subject, not > just Wikipedia), it pretty much always boils down to "fitness for purpose > as > perceived by the user". This is why surveying of users is often used to > measure quality. "How well did we serve you today?" If anyone has been > through Singapore Airport recently, you will have encountered the touch > screens asking to rate on a 1-5 scale just about everything you could > imagine, every toilet block, every immigration queue, etc. And it does have > the cleanest toilets and the fastest immigration queues, so maybe there's > something to be said for the approach. > > I think we need to have some common understanding of what we mean by > quality, before we try to compare it across languages. And when we do > compare across languages, then we have to observe that the set of users > changes and presumably their needs change too. > > It is interesting to note that en.WP page views have dropped consistently > since Google Knowledge (which generally displays the first para from the > en.WP article) was introduced. What this tells us is that a certain > percentage of readers of an article simply want the most basic facts, which > would be delivered even by a stub article. "Suriname is a country on the > northeastern Atlantic coast of South America" certainly met my information > needs adequately (I heard it mentioned on the TV news in connection with a > hurricane). After finding out where it was in the world, I could have gone > on to read about its colonial history, its demographic sexuality, and its > biodiversity, but I didn't because I didn't have a need to know at that > moment. My point here is that while we would not generally regard a stub as > "quality", but a percentage of the readers of a stub are probably > completely > satisfied. > > Of course, doing surveys of articles with real users is somewhat difficult > for a research project. But it might be useful to see how user perceptions > of quality compare with other metrics (particularly those which can be more > easily generated for a research project). Starting with other metrics, > without knowing that they are a good proxy for user perception, is probably > a waste of time. > > Kerry > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > -- Oliver Keyes Research Analyst Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
