On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Brian J Mingus, 04/06/2010 16:17:
o Note that G articles are
extremely hard to predict and
should be merged with another quality class.
Or viceversa this is a useful class because of that, i.e. because gives
infos that an automated algorithm can't give?
Nemo
Do you have an example of the information that the raters use to classify
good articles that I didn't look at? If so then we can automate it and try
to classify them. There really is nothing that a human can do that we can't
automate in some way. There are a few things that are out of reach right
now, such as dependency parsing and discourse analysis including
differentiating between clear and grammatically correct prose versus
brilliant prose. Those things are already on the horizon, however, and might
even be possible. Bottom line is the raters aren't using any sort of
consistent methodology to classify the articles, including that they don't
even follow their own guidelines nor the Wikipedia Manual of Style.
Cheers,