On 17 April 2014 14:56, Rod Ward <[email protected]> wrote: > Many projects have installed a “popular pages” tool highlighting which of > the pages with the talk page banner are most popular. It is updated monthly > (ish) see for example > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Somerset/Popular_pages > so the toolserver tool at https://toolserver.org/~alexz/pop/ may also be > useful. >
Very interesting, I hadn't seen this! > On a more general point can I just ask why an automated tool (using all > the suggested parameters) is likely to be any more accurate that the human > generated wikiproject rankings? > I think the idea is that, while it may be less accurate, it can be run reliably on a much larger number of articles more frequently, so you do things like, say, track the daily change in quality for the top 1000 viewed articles. Ed > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Edward Saperia > *Sent:* 17 April 2014 14:48 > *To:* UK Wikimedia mailing list > *Subject:* Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Rating Wikimedia content (was Our next, > strategy plan-Paid editing) > > > > It's interesting to think that in most circumstances, good online content > is considered to drive traffic, i.e. quality pages attract more views, but > with Wikipedia articles, I've only ever seen people think high traffic > articles => more editors => higher quality. This is intuitive, but it would > be interesting to see how true it is. It would also be interesting to see > what percentage of readers are editors by topic area; I suspect this would > vary a lot. > > > > I always find it a bit of a shame that viewership figures are hidden away > in an unpublicised tool (https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikiviewstats/). I > would have though seeing how many people view a page would be very > motivating to editors, and perhaps could be displayed prominently e.g. on > talk pages. > > > *Edward Saperia* > > Chief Coordinator Wikimania London <http://www.wikimanialondon.org> > > email <[email protected]> • facebook<http://www.facebook.com/edsaperia> > • twitter <http://www.twitter.com/edsaperia> • 07796955572 > > 133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG > > > > On 17 April 2014 14:34, Simon Knight <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think we’d want to distinguish between: > > · Quality – taken from diff-features (i.e. Writing, but possibly > including Sources), and > > · Significance – taken from Traffic, Edit History, and Discussion > > > > The latter might be used to give a weighting to the high-significance > ratings such that high quality edits on highly significant articles are > rated higher, but that’s a secondary question. > > > > You’re right that then there’s an interesting issue re: what’s output, and > how this is used. In this case our primary interest is in getting a feel > for what level of *quality *the *quantity *of WMUK related edits are. One > can easily imagine that being used by other chapters/orgs within the > movement, but it could of course also be spread outside of article writing > (e.g. any education assignment on a wiki) or/and be used by projects to > explore article qualities. I would guess that outputting discrete scores > for various things (e.g. ‘referencing’, ‘organisation’, etc.) and providing > some means to amalgamate those scores for an overview would be more useful > than just a raw ‘score’/rating. I’ll think about this a bit more over the > weekend I hope. > > > > Cheers > > S > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *John Byrne > *Sent:* 17 April 2014 13:46 > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Rating Wikimedia content (was Our next, > strategy plan-Paid editing) > > > > I must say I'm pretty dubious about this approach for articles. I doubt > it can detect most of the typical problems with them - for example > all-online sources are > very often a warning sign, but may not be, or may be inevitable in a > topical subject. Most of Charles' factors below relate better to views and > controversialness than article quality, and > article quality has a limited ability to increase views, as study of FAs > before and after expansion will show. > > Personally I'd think the lack of 1 to say 4 dominant editors in the stats > is a more reliable warning sign than "A single editor, or essentially only > one editor with > tweaking" in most subjects. Nothing is more characteristic of a popular > but poor article than a huge list of contributors, all with fewer than 10 > edits. Sadly, the implied notion (at T for Traffic below) that fairly high > views automatically lead to increased quality is very dubious - we have > plenty of extremely bad articles that have had by now millions of viewers > who have between them done next to nothing to improve the now-ancient text. > > There is also the question of what use the results of the exercise will > be. Our current quality ratings certainly have problems, but are a lot > better than nothing. However the areas where systematic work seems to be > going on improving the lowest rated articles, in combination with high > importance ratings, are relatively few. An automated system is hard to > argue with, & I'm concerned that such ratings will actually > cause more problems than they reveal or solve, if people take them more > seriously than they deserve, or are unable to over-ride or question them. > One issue with the manual system is that it tends to give a greatly > excessive > weight to article length, as though there was a standard ideal size for > all subjects, which of course there isn't. It will be even harder for an > automated system to avoid the same pitfall without relying on the very > blunt instrument of our importance ratings, which don't pretend to operate > to common standards, so that nobody thinks that "high-importance" means, or > should mean, the same between say > WikiProject_Friesland<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiProject_Friesland>and > Wikiproject:Science. > > John > > Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 19:53:20 +0100 > > From: Charles Matthews <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > > > > > > There's the old DREWS acronym from How Wikipedia Works. to which I'd now > > add T for traffic. In other words there are six factors that an experienced > > human would use to analyse quality, looking in particular for warning signs. > > > > D = Discussion: crunch the talk page (20 archives = controversial, while no > > comments indicates possible neglect) > > R = WikiProject rating, FWIW, if there is one. > > E = Edit history. A single editor, or essentially only one editor with > > tweaking, is a warning sign. (Though not if it is me, obviously) > > W = Writing. This would take some sort of text analysis. Work to do here. > > Includes detection of non-standard format, which would suggest neglect by > > experienced editors. > > S = Sources. Count footnotes and so on. > > T = Traffic. Pages at 100 hits per month are not getting many eyeballs. > > Warning sign. Very high traffic is another issue. > > > > Seems to me that there is enough to bite on, here. > > > > Charles > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > [image: Image removed by sender.] <http://www.avast.com/> > > This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! > Antivirus<http://www.avast.com/>protection is active. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >
<<inline: ~WRD000.jpg>>
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
