My starting point have been the newly created articles on svwp. They
will represent the usual bunch of football playser, tv-stars,
computergames, films etc where svwp are behind most versions but where
enwp is excellent. The interesting comparisons comes from the next
levels of articles that can be almost anything, a footballstadium in
Kazan Russia, an albanian poet, a church in Venize, a specie with
unclear taxonomy, the american solider who perhaps deserted etc. In
these cases I only often find a corresponding article in enwp, but also
very often (around 20%) I find it in another version and no presence in
enwp.
And when enwp is not giving me support, I most often find support in
eswp and frwp, sometimes in dewp, but almost never in ptwp. For exemple
taxanomical threes with name in native and latin is about the weakest
in ptwp. But I can be wrong and I would love to be part in a more
complete research on Q comparisons for the different versions
Anders
Juliana Bastos Marques skrev 2014-06-10 14:06:
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 <mailto:mail@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 <http://hblog.org/> | @hfordsa
<http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa>
On 10 June 2014 07:58, Anders Wennersten
<mail(a)anderswennersten.se <mailto:mail@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
<mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
www.domusaurea.org <http://www.domusaurea.org>
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l