What would you do with a system that was intelligent enough to analyze a Wikipedia article along with qualitative human judgments of that article ("brilliant prose") and tell you exactly what the humans meant, even when they weren't sure themselves?
<br><br>At least years Wikimania Erik Zachte and I discussed exactly this possibility. Invariably these discussions lead to the  subjective nature of quality, and quickly diverge to [[Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance]]. But my colleagues and I have determined that this problem should be tractable, and have initiated a research program to find out if we are correct.
<br><br>What we would like to know is your dreams for such a system, what you would like it to do, and what you would do with it. To help kick-start your imaginations, please see the following paper, written by myself, a psychologist, Trevor Pincock, a linguist, and Laura Rassbach, a computer scientist. Although we consider our findings to be preliminary, we would also like to emphasize the phenomenal rate of growth of the field of [[Natural Language Processing]]. We *will* be able to build the system of your dreams. We just need to hear them first.
<br><br>Please note that this paper is a draft. Please do not cite it.<br><br>&quot;Exploring the Feasibility of Automatically Rating Online Article Quality&quot;<br><a href="http://whisper.colorado.edu/RassbachPincockMingus07.pdf">
http://whisper.colorado.edu/RassbachPincockMingus07.pdf</a><br><br>/Brian Mingus<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alterego">en:User:Alterego</a><br><br><br>