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
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
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Email had 1 attachment:
+ signature.asc
1k (application/pgp-signature)