On 8 May 2014 01:56, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote: > (However, this study does not seem to have been based on a random sample – > at least I cannot find any mention of the sample selection method in the > study's write-up. The selection of a random sample is key to any such > effort, and the method used to select the sample should be described in > detail in any resulting report.)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EPIC_Oxford_report.pdf Section 3.3 of the report covers article selection. They went about it backwards (at least, backwards to the way you might expect) - recruiting reviewers and then manually identifying relevant articles, as the original goal was to use relevant topics for individual specialists. Even this selective method didn't work as well as might be hoped, because the mechanism of the study required a minimum level of content - the articles had to be substantial enough to be useful for a comparison, and of sufficient length and comparable scope in both sets of sources - which ruled out many of the initial selections. (This is a key point to remember: the study effectively assesses the quality of a subset of "developed" articles in Wikipedia, rather than the presumably less-good fragmentary ones. It's a valid question to ask, but not always the one people think it's answering...) "Thus the selection of articles was constrained by two important factors: one, the need to find topics appropriate for the academics whom we were able to recruit to the project; secondly, that articles from different online encyclopaedias were of comparable substance and focus. (Such factors would need to be taken carefully into account when embarking on a future large-scale study, where the demands of finding large numbers of comparable articles are likely to be considerable.)" You'd need to adopt a fairly different methodology if you wanted a random sampling; I suppose you could prefilter a sample by "likely to be suitable" metrics (eg minimum size, article title matching a title list from the other reference works) and randomly select from within *those*, but of course you would still have the fundamental issue that you're essentially reviewing a selected portion of the project. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
