Thanks
for your note. I have not made any suggestion or concurrences yet, but suggest
you edit your note:
second paragraph: change"sighted" to "cited."
"Sighted" is what happens to UFO's. "Cited" is what happens to
reference
articles.
Otherwise, cool.
-----
Original Message ----
From: P. Birken <pbirken@gmail.com>
To:
Wikimedia Quality Discussions <wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent:
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 6:13:17 AM
Subject: [Wikiquality-l] Metrics for
Testing of Flagged Revs
Hiho,
as most of you will have heard,
flagged revisions were turned on on
de.wikipedia.org. You can follow progress on
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~aka/cgi-bin/reviewcnt.cgi. Now, it
would be
important to measure success of flagged revisions in some way.
The
following metrics come to my mind:
-Number of articles with a
sighted revision (not very useful though,
but measures acceptance among
editors in a way.)
-Number of articles that have a sighted revision but where
the current
version is not sighted
-Time needed to sight revisions (max
and mean of time until a revision
by a noneditor is sighted. The mean is very
difficult to get, but
could be computed by using the mean of the pages
in
Spezial:OldReviewedPages)
-Number of editors, meaning users who have
the right to sight edits
(again, acceptance but also to see if we hinder
people in editing more
than we should)
Do you have more ideas for
metrics and how to measure
them?
Best,
Philipp
_______________________________________________
Wikiquality-l
mailing list
Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l