...You would want to show that some quantitative measures like number of edits correlate positively with quality.
...
I would argue that you can assess article quality only by human measure.
...
I think all attempts at reputation systems etc will fail if they are purely algorithmical.
Well, then we all agree. When do we start? :)
Well, as ever, pinning down measures of "quality" could be one place to start. We all know it when we see it... but what does quality mean? Andrea's dimensions of accuracy, comprehensiveness, and accessible writing are certainly major -- and I would add whether the article is referenced, has images and so on, with number of edits as one dimension. The problem, of course, is measuring something so subjective.
From a research point of view, I'd be interested in seeing whether
different measures of quality are more important to different groups (anons v. wikipedians v. outside experts, and so on). Does accuracy matter more to some groups than others? Writing style? The Nature article mentioned that some of the reviewers thought the Wikipedia articles were difficult to get through, even if they were accurate, but no mention was made of the Brittanica's writing style.
And yeah, I'll have about half an hour free in the spring myself :) and would also be interested in working on something like this.
Incidentally, the sidebar permanent link doesn't show up in all skins.
-- phoebe / brassratgirl