Hoi, Do we have a way of indicating that something was graded at a given date ? Thanks, GerardM
On 26 March 2014 22:35, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
The WP 1.0 model is pretty good (at least across a sample of a hundred or so articles) but it's quite labour-intensive. It's also very easy to give completely misleading answers, because there's no re-review process - in the bulk of cases, articles get rated once and then never looked at again. So we have stub articles which are 10,000 characters long with diagrams and references and so forth, because no-one ever remembers to re-rate it or indeed because people think it's not their business to.
As a result, a recently rated set of articles is a meaningful result, but a selection of already-rated articles isn't - there's simply no way to tell if they're stale.
It would be great if this sort of rating was being systematically checked - but at a vague estimate of thirty seconds to scan, grade, and tag, aggregated across all pages on enwiki, that's about fifteen or twenty person-years of work to do it as a once-off, much less a rolling process.
Andrew.
On 25 March 2014 23:35, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@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@wikimedia.orgwrote:
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@wikimedia.org | : @Philippewikihttps://twitter.com/Philippewiki
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.comwrote:
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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe