During the last strategy plan, we struggled a lot with article quality.
Specifically, we struggled with how to MEASURE article quality... we don't
have a strong metric for it or a tool to do it. AFT actually played with
that a little bit, as well as it's attempt to engage and convert readers
into editors.... but I haven't yet seen anything that measures article
quality very well.
I'd very much like to see that change. I had actually hoped, as we
finished up that strategy, that there would be such a tool by this point.
pb
*Philippe Beaudette * \\ Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc.
T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | philippe(a)wikimedia.org | :
@Philippewiki<https://twitter.com/Philippewiki>
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, rupert THURNER
<rupert.thurner(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
The "more and more" rules is also a concern
i experience when discussing
with newbies, but also with more experienced contributors. My main concern
is that the terms of use are reflecting US law and English speaking
countries worries. In this light they should be as slim as necessary for
fulfilling legal requirements. Everything else should imo go to volunteers
driven rules in the respective language editions.
Rupert
Am 25.03.2014 17:06 schrieb "Anders Wennersten" <mail(a)anderswennersten.se
:
The discussion on the proposed amendment is now
closed [1) and it is up
to
the Board will review the community comments. And
with almost 5,000 edits
in the discussion - with more than 2,000 editors and 320,000 words in
various languages and with very different opinions on the subject, it
will
be a challenge for the Board to come to a common
standpoint if it as all
is
possible
Stephen LePorte writes: /The !vote is one strong indicator of the
importance of addressing this topic/, in which I fully agree
I would like suggest that the issue of paid editors should become one
area
to look when we start the work with the next
version of our strategy plan
In our last strategy it stated "more editors" which in reality became
about the same number but where a few became semi-professional who make
an
increasing percentage of all edits. And I believe
we should instead of
"more editors" had stated "more, better articles with higher quality"
and
then been more open to means to reach that goal (where more editors could
had been one mean)
In the same way I would like something like "more, better articles with
higher quality" to be a goal for next five year strategy plan and where
paid edits could be one mean to reach that goal, but which then need to
be
supported with proper guidelines recommendations
etc.
Personally I am a bit concerned that we introduce more and more elaborate
rules for qualified editing at the same time the base technique is
getting
more complicated (wikidata is great but it puts
higher demand on skill
for
editors). I do not see that this trend necessary
means higher treshhold
for
new beginner, as other tools like visual editors
make it easier to start.
But I do beleive the treshhold to become a qualified a
"semi-professional
editor" IS becoming higher. And perhaps the
receipt for last five years -
more semiprofessional - is not a viable option for next five years
Anders
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_
contributions_amendment
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>