It does have to be scalable if you want to be able to measure any article, at least approximately. Let's say I am interested in 5000 articles on the subjects X, Y and Z, none of which have been manually rated, and never will be due to the scaling problem. An automated tool would be extremely useful to me, and is the best measure I am going to get in the absence of huge resources to measure their qualities in the manual way.
Michael On 7 May 2014, at 23:38, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Michael Maggs <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Measuring the quality of Wikipedia articles in general is an issue that >> Wikimedia UK is interested in looking at, though by means of automation >> rather than the gold-standard but much less scalable method of scholarly >> peer review. >> > > > It doesn't *have* to be scalable. That's what sampling was invented for. > > Automation. As they say, if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks > like a nail. > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
