(quite old and outdated now, but still good).
*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 4:45 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
If nothing else, the existing community quality rating
system (i.e. FA, GA,
etc.) should be used. It may not be perfect at the individual article
level, but it does scale well.
On Mar 26, 2014 6:36 AM, "Pete Forsyth" <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Philippe,
The Public Policy Initiative produced strong validation for the Wikipedia
1.0 approach to assessing article quality. Was Amy Roth's research ever
published, and are there any plans to repeat it with a larger sample size
etc.? I'd say we're closer than you think to having a good way to measure
article quality.
Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Philippe Beaudette
<philippe(a)wikimedia.org>wrote;wrote:
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>
_______________________________________________
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>
_______________________________________________
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>