Something similar was tried at the Wikimedia Foundation, with the Article Feedback Tool. This all happened before I joined the WMF, and I wasn't aware of it in my time as a volunteer, so I'm mostly reciting what others have told me here. Take what I say with a pinch of salt.
There were two major problems that occurred with the Article Feedback Tool: 1) Way, way more feedback was generated than could be handled. 2) People often ended up rating the subject of the page rather than the content in it (e.g. [[Justin Bieber]] got lots of 1s and 5s). It would be wise to think about ways to mitigate these problems from the very start, so that they don't occur again. I'm happy to work with you on these, as much as my time allows. Thanks, Dan On 16 April 2014 10:25, Michael Maggs <[email protected]> wrote: > On 26 Mar 2014, at 21:35, Andrew Gray <[email protected]> wrote: > > <snip> > > 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 <[email protected]> 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]] > > > > There is at present no comprehensive automated tool that can be used to > measure article and media file quality. Measuring *quantity* is easy; > *quality* much more difficult. > > At the Wikimedia Conference over the weekend I presented some thoughts > about a possible software project, to be lead by Wikimedia UK, to tackle > this. > > A review of the presentation, and slides, can be seen at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014/Documentation/24#Michael_Maggs_.28WMUK.29_-_WikiRate:_rating_Wikimedia > > The WMUK wiki page is here: > https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Technology_Committee/Project_requests/WikiRate_-_rating_Wikimedia > > Comments and feedback are most welcome. In particular, we would like to > know whether creating such tools would be considered a useful thing to do > by the community. > > Best regards > > Michael > > ____________ > Michael Maggs > Chair, Wikimedia UK > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
