I oppose such idea or implementation, automating ranking of content sounds like a way to get people focus on the rank/score aggressively instead of human work on content. They already focus on 'number of GA reviews' and 'number of FAs I contributed to', relying on style and content guides for these more than on the concept of freedom of knowledge. I had created https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Karma recently in an attempt to start gathering examples of such blindly misleading work.
If implemented, I dare to ask that the thing is opt-in... On Fri, 7 Mar 2014, at 10:25, Quim Gil wrote: > Hi Devender, I'm not a developer but I hope my feedback as editor is useful. > > On 03/06/2014 12:02 AM, Devender wrote: > > I want to implement a ranking system of the editors(especially 3rd party > > editors) of the Wikipedia through which viewers can differentiate between > > the content of the page. > > What do you mean with "3rd party editors"? > > > > This ranking system will increase the content reliability > > Content reliability is indeed an interesting value for wiki content, > especially in projects like Wikipedia. However, basing the reliability > of the content on the quantity of edits done by an editor is risky --to > say the least. > > Reliability is based on quantity, not quality. If you would find a way > to assess the quality of the editions of an editor (and therefor the > reliability of an editor)... Then maybe you could provide a hint about > the reliability of an article based on the reliability of the editors > that edited it. > > Even in that case it might be complex to figure out when the reliable > editors are acting to add more quality to an already good article, or to > fix the worst issues of a horrible article. When they add and when they > revert... > > And of course it may also happen that editors not identified as reliable > produce great content, as it often the case with editors very > specialized in certain topic, with a short history of excellent edits. > > > 2. Make the different color of the line/paragraph if the content of the > > line/paragraph is very new and its reliability score is less. > > Even if there is some probability that older paragraphs that have > survived many edits intact are somewhat reliable, it is too easy to find > examples disproving this point. This is true especially in the articles > needing more a quality assessment, those that are not edited often and > are not watched by many experienced editors. > > > > Please let me if I should go with this idea. If not, guide me how to start > > working on different idea. > > This is just my personal opinion and I'm not an expert. Maybe someone > else will ave a different, more positive opinion about your project, or > advice to re-focus it. > > In general, students proposing new projects have more chances of success > if they start pitching and testing their ideas months before the GSoC. > Add a factor of x5 at least if your main target is a Wikimedia project. > > If you don't get mentors for your project very soon, then the safest > option is to choose a project at > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Summer_of_Code_2014 and go for it. > > Thank you for your interest in contributing to Wikimedia. Also thank you > for following my suggestion to post at wikitech-l. I hope you wll get > more feedback from other people in this list. > > -- > Quim Gil > Technical Contributor Coordinator @ Wikimedia Foundation > http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > Email had 1 attachment: > + signature.asc > 1k (application/pgp-signature) _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
