The WP 1.0 model is pretty good (at least across a sample of a hundred or so articles) but it's quite labour-intensive. It's also very easy to give completely misleading answers, because there's no re-review process - in the bulk of cases, articles get rated once and then never looked at again. So we have stub articles which are 10,000 characters long with diagrams and references and so forth, because no-one ever remembers to re-rate it or indeed because people think it's not their business to.
As a result, a recently rated set of articles is a meaningful result, but a selection of already-rated articles isn't - there's simply no way to tell if they're stale. 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]] > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Philippe Beaudette > <phili...@wikimedia.org>wrote: > >> During the last strategy plan, we struggled a lot with article quality. >> Specifically, we struggled with how to MEASURE article quality... we don't >> have a strong metric for it or a tool to do it. AFT actually played with >> that a little bit, as well as it's attempt to engage and convert readers >> into editors.... but I haven't yet seen anything that measures article >> quality very well. >> >> I'd very much like to see that change. I had actually hoped, as we >> finished up that strategy, that there would be such a tool by this point. >> >> pb >> >> >> *Philippe Beaudette * \\ Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia >> Foundation, Inc. >> T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | phili...@wikimedia.org | : >> @Philippewiki<https://twitter.com/Philippewiki> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, rupert THURNER >> <rupert.thur...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >> > The "more and more" rules is also a concern i experience when discussing >> > with newbies, but also with more experienced contributors. My main >> concern >> > is that the terms of use are reflecting US law and English speaking >> > countries worries. In this light they should be as slim as necessary for >> > fulfilling legal requirements. Everything else should imo go to >> volunteers >> > driven rules in the respective language editions. >> > >> > Rupert >> > Am 25.03.2014 17:06 schrieb "Anders Wennersten" < >> m...@anderswennersten.se >> > >: >> > >> > > The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1) and it is up >> > to >> > > the Board will review the community comments. And with almost 5,000 >> edits >> > > in the discussion - with more than 2,000 editors and 320,000 words in >> > > various languages and with very different opinions on the subject, it >> > will >> > > be a challenge for the Board to come to a common standpoint if it as >> all >> > is >> > > possible >> > > >> > > Stephen LePorte writes: /The !vote is one strong indicator of the >> > > importance of addressing this topic/, in which I fully agree >> > > >> > > I would like suggest that the issue of paid editors should become one >> > area >> > > to look when we start the work with the next version of our strategy >> plan >> > > >> > > In our last strategy it stated "more editors" which in reality became >> > > about the same number but where a few became semi-professional who make >> > an >> > > increasing percentage of all edits. And I believe we should instead of >> > > "more editors" had stated "more, better articles with higher quality" >> and >> > > then been more open to means to reach that goal (where more editors >> could >> > > had been one mean) >> > > >> > > In the same way I would like something like "more, better articles with >> > > higher quality" to be a goal for next five year strategy plan and where >> > > paid edits could be one mean to reach that goal, but which then need to >> > be >> > > supported with proper guidelines recommendations etc. >> > > >> > > Personally I am a bit concerned that we introduce more and more >> elaborate >> > > rules for qualified editing at the same time the base technique is >> > getting >> > > more complicated (wikidata is great but it puts higher demand on skill >> > for >> > > editors). I do not see that this trend necessary means higher treshhold >> > for >> > > new beginner, as other tools like visual editors make it easier to >> start. >> > > But I do beleive the treshhold to become a qualified a >> > "semi-professional >> > > editor" IS becoming higher. And perhaps the receipt for last five >> years - >> > > more semiprofessional - is not a viable option for next five years >> > > >> > > Anders >> > > >> > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_ >> > > contributions_amendment >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > 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> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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> >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> 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> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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> -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.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>
