[cc'ing to wikipedia-l]
Joseph Reagle (reagle@mit.edu) [050528 02:56]:
On Thursday 26 May 2005 08:41, David Gerard wrote:
I particularly want to hear from academic researchers interested in Wikipedia - you folk will LOVE this data. What things would you particularly like to see reader/editor ratings of?
At first blush, it would make sense to rate articles with respect to the criteria of what makes a good article as documented on: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_article [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles
Yeah. I went through the first of those and tried to write them as rateable criteria. All improvements most welcomed.
So, it would be really interesting to see what are the most popular stub articles. (This to could be generated automatically from referrer, but can also be used so as to find the most popular poorly rated articles once we have that data.)
Indeed!
"Gather the data but don't do anything with it yet" is an idea that I think will work very nicely *because* it separates layers properly. If we create a pile of raw data, people will come up with *all sorts* of interesting things to do with it. Then maybe we can go back and tweak what we collect.
- d.