On 26 Mar 2014, at 21:35, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
<snip>
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]]
There is at present no comprehensive automated tool that can be used to measure article and media file quality. Measuring quantity is easy; quality much more difficult.
At the Wikimedia Conference over the weekend I presented some thoughts about a possible software project, to be lead by Wikimedia UK, to tackle this.
A review of the presentation, and slides, can be seen at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014/Documentation/24#M...
The WMUK wiki page is here: https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Technology_Committee/Project_requests/WikiRate...
Comments and feedback are most welcome. In particular, we would like to know whether creating such tools would be considered a useful thing to do by the community.
Best regards
Michael
____________ Michael Maggs Chair, Wikimedia UK