This topic comes in handy for my research on Featured Articles in WP:PT.
Maybe some of you may remember my request a little while ago about studies
on Wikipedias other than English. Well, not that I believe that the
Featured Article requirements are a good evaluation per se, in terms of
quality of content.
Anders, what are the articles you evaluated? I'm curious to find out what
was so bad in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Indeed, there are many problems
there, but I'm surprised to hear that it looks so bad. I know it's a drop
in the ocean, but I've been fixing some new articles that are translations
from bad English ones - which look good, but analyzing the content reveals
many problems.
Juliana.
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Anders Wennersten <mail(a)anderswennersten.se
wrote:
> Thanks for answer
>
> Your answer confirm my "fear", that focus is almost completly to en:wp and
> how it is compared with an ideal perfect Q
>
> My interest and what I believe the movement need before we dig into next
> round of strategy round is
> *what versions are dysfunctional. These represent a risk for the movement
> as they can jeoprdaize the brand name, as they are not living up to basic Q
> (and NPOV)
> *what can we learn from each other, why are some better in some aspects
> and worse in others?
>
> I would recommend a research approach much more basic just collecting some
> few data on each version (and forget about enwp)
>
> Anders
>
>
>
> Heather Ford skrev 2014-06-10 13:09:
>
> Hi Anders,
>
> Yes, it's a great question! Mark Graham and I are currently working on a
> project around how to determine quality within and between Wikipedias and
> I've been looking around for literature. I'm only just starting the
> literature review but I've found some interesting studies by Callahan &
> Herring (2011) [1] and Stvilia, Al-Faraj, and Yi (2009) [2]. The majority
> of quality studies, we find, have been done on English Wikipedia (starting
> with the famous 2005 Nature study) but there have been few studies that
> assess of quality between languages. If you find anything else, let us
> know!
>
> Thanks!
>
> Best,
> heather.
>
> [1]
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.21577/abstract
>
> [2]
>
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/200773220_Issues_of_cross-contextua…
>
>
>
>
>
> Heather Ford
> Oxford Internet Institute <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk> Doctoral Programme
> EthnographyMatters <http://ethnographymatters.net> | Oxford Digital
> Ethnography Group <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115>
>
http://hblog.org | @hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa>
>
>
>
>
> On 10 June 2014 07:58, Anders Wennersten <mail(a)anderswennersten.se
wrote:
>
>> (reposted from Wikimedia-i)
>>
>> I have several times asked for a professional quality study of our
>> different language versions, but not seen it exist or being done, perhaps
>> you know more on this list?. before we start the strategy work I believe
>> we should have basic facts on the table like this one
>>
>> I therefor list here my subjective impression after daily looking into
>> the different version for 5-15 articles (new ones being created on sv.wp)
>> (I list them in order how often I use them to calibrate the svwp articles).
>>
>> enwp- a magnitude better then any other. main weakeness are articles on
>> marginal subjects that seems to be allowed to exist there, even if rather
>> bad, and without templates (noone cares to patrol these?)
>>
>> eswp - a very good version, which in the general discussion are not
>> getting appropriate credit
>>
>> dewp - good when the articles exist, but many serious holes. Is the
>> elitist way of running it, discouraging new editors in non obvious subjects
>> (that after time passes gets very relevant)?
>> frwp - also good, but somewhat scattered quality both in coverage and the
>> different articles (even in same subject area)
>> nlwp - very good coverage in the geographic subjects, decent quality on
>> articles but limited "world" coverage in areas like biographies
>> itwp - good articles but a bit italiancentered,
>>
>> nowp - small but decent articles. Their short focused articletext
>> sometimes give more easyaccessed knowledge then an overly long one in other
>> languages
>>
>> ptwp - the real disappointment. it is among the top ten in volume and
>> accesses but clearly missing a lot, and even existing articles are uneven.
>> I now use it even less then Ukrainian and Russian which I use very seldom
>> as the different alphabet makes it hard to understand the article content
>>
>> dawp,fiwp and plwp -Ok but only used by me for articles related to the
>> country
>>
>> (arabic, chinese and japanese I almost never use, too complicated)
>>
>> (I also use some smaller ones like sqwp , in these versions I have seen
>> serious quality problems not to be found in any of the above ones, I am not
>> sure they even have basic patrolling in place)
>>
>> Anders
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing
listWiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
--
www.domusaurea.org