Our next strategy plan-Paid editing

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Re: [Wikimedia-l]...

Documentation of the Wikimedia...

Anders Wennersten

25 Mar 2014 25 Mar '14

5:06 p.m.

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

Show replies by date

rupert THURNER

25 Mar 25 Mar

8:13 p.m.

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(a)anderswennersten.se>se>:

...

Philippe Beaudette

26 Mar 26 Mar

12:25 a.m.

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(a)wikimedia.org | : @Philippewiki<https://twitter.com/Philippewiki> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, rupert THURNER <rupert.thurner(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

...

The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1) and it is up

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

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

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

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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Pete Forsyth

12:35 a.m.

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(a)wikimedia.org>wrote;wrote:

...

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(a)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

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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Philippe Beaudette

12:41 a.m.

I wouldn't know, Pete. But as I recall, it was a manual process, wasn't it? And therefore quite difficult to scale and/or adapt for some usages? *Philippe Beaudette * \\ Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | philippe(a)wikimedia.org | : @Philippewiki<https://twitter.com/Philippewiki> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

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(a)wikimedia.org | : @Philippewiki<https://twitter.com/Philippewiki> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, rupert THURNER <rupert.thurner(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: > 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(a)anderswennersten.se > >: > > > The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1) and it is

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

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

> "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

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(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Sage Ross

3:13 p.m.

On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Philippe Beaudette <philippe(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

I wouldn't know, Pete. But as I recall, it was a manual process, wasn't it? And therefore quite difficult to scale and/or adapt for some usages? On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)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. >

That part of Amy Roth's research has not been published except on-wiki.[1] There was also a followup study after the Public Policy Initiative using the same method, which found found similar results.[2] It's true that these studies were manual processes that took a huge amount of work and wouldn't scale (at least, without some investing in tools for easy data generation and collection). But I think Pete's point is that these studies show that the widespread Wikipedia 1.0 scale itself does a decent job of what it is intended to do. [1] = https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Student_Contributions_to_Wikipedia [2] = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ambassadors/Research/Article_qualit… On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc(a)uberbox.org> wrote:

...

On 03/25/2014 07:45 PM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:

If nothing else, the existing community quality rating system (i.e. FA, GA, etc.) should be used.

That idea needs to be tempered with a strong caveat: at least for enwiki, those processes tend to be highly politized as they are already. Focusing strategy on those is likely to have volatile effects and any step in that direction has to be done deliberately and with a great deal of caution.

While this is true to some degree, if an article *does* make it through one of these processes, that's a fairly reliable indicator that it's at least pretty decent. The bigger problem is that the lower ratings, between Stub and B-class, are often badly out-of-date. For both the process-based ratings (FA, A, GA) and the informally assigned ones (Stub, Start, C, B), the ratings are probably best thought of as a very approximate lower bound for quality. (That is, a "B-class" article might really be GA quality and it just never went through the process, or a "Stub" might actually have developed well into C-class territory in the time since its rating was assigned.) The nice thing about the Wikipedia 1.0 ratings is that we already have all the data, just waiting for someone to do something cool with it. The history of this page would be fun to play with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WP_1.0_bot/Tables/OverallArticles -Sage

Pete Forsyth

5:21 p.m.

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Sage Ross <ragesoss+wikipedia(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

...

Thanks Sage, [1] is the page I was looking for, and had trouble finding.

...

It's true that these studies were manual processes that took a huge amount of work and wouldn't scale (at least, without some investing in tools for easy data generation and collection).

Yes -- the *research that produced* the finding was resource-intensive. But as Sage says, my point was it's the *results* of the research that have lasting value.

...

But I think Pete's point is that these studies show that the widespread Wikipedia 1.0 scale itself does a decent job of what it is intended to do. [1] = https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Student_Contributions_to_Wikipedia [2] = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ambassadors/Research/Article_qualit… On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc(a)uberbox.org> wrote:

On 03/25/2014 07:45 PM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: > If nothing else, the existing community quality rating system (i.e. FA,

GA,

> etc.) should be used.

Exactly. And the question of *exactly how* reliable that system is, is an important one, and one we are at least part way to answering.

...

Very good point. (But, not so much caution that we fail to proceed at all!!!) While this is true to some degree, if an article *does* make it

...

through one of these processes, that's a fairly reliable indicator that it's at least pretty decent.

Yes. The value of Amy's research is that we can say that with confidence -- not just as Wikipedians with anecdotal experience. It is true that her study covered only the US Public Policy topic, and also I don't think it was ever published by a peer reviewed journal. But it does, if nothing else, lay out a clear path for future research. Amy also published her methodology.[3]

...

The bigger problem is that the lower ratings, between Stub and B-class, are often badly out-of-date. <snip>

That is true, but it is also something that can be systematically evaluated by software. For instance, and automated process could "score" the currency of a rating by determining when the "class=" parameter was updated, and summarizing what has happened to the article since (bytes added, number of references added, sub-articles spun off, number of talk page comments.....) This would of course require further deliberation and design -- but it's a rich vein to mine. The nice thing about the Wikipedia 1.0 ratings is that we already have

...

all the data, just waiting for someone to do something cool with it. The history of this page would be fun to play with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WP_1.0_bot/Tables/OverallArticles -Sage

OK, a small pet peeve about that table: the "importance" axis is meaningless when aggregaged. If an an Academy Award winning film was set partially in Wisconsin, it might be rated "top" importance by WikiProject Film, but "low" importance by WikiProject Wisconsin. "Importance" in the abstract is a meaningless term; it's "importance in XYZ context" that matters. </rant> -Pete [3] https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_Initiative_Evaluation_and…

John Mark Vandenberg

12:45 a.m.

If nothing else, the existing community quality rating system (i.e. FA, GA, etc.) should be used. It may not be perfect at the individual article level, but it does scale well. On Mar 26, 2014 6:36 AM, "Pete Forsyth" <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

During the last strategy plan, we struggled a lot with article quality. Specifically, we struggled with how to MEASURE article quality... we

don't

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(a)anderswennersten.se > >: > > > The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1) and it is

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

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

> "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

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

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Philippe Beaudette

12:52 a.m.

Handy link for background: https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Quality (quite old and outdated now, but still good). *Philippe Beaudette * \\ Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | philippe(a)wikimedia.org | : @Philippewiki<https://twitter.com/Philippewiki> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:45 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

...

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(a)wikimedia.org | : @Philippewiki<https://twitter.com/Philippewiki> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, rupert THURNER <rupert.thurner(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: > 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(a)anderswennersten.se > > >: > > > > > The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1) and it

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

> > > various languages and with very different opinions on the subject,

> > will > > > be a challenge for the Board to come to a common standpoint if it

> 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

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

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org

?subject=unsubscribe>

> > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Marc A. Pelletier

12:55 a.m.

On 03/25/2014 07:45 PM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:

...

If nothing else, the existing community quality rating system (i.e. FA, GA, etc.) should be used.

Andrew Gray

10:35 p.m.

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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

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(a)wikimedia.org | : > @Philippewiki<https://twitter.com/Philippewiki> > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, rupert THURNER > <rupert.thurner(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: > > > 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(a)anderswennersten.se > > >: > > > > > The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1) and it is

...

> > 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

...

> > > "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

...

> > 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(a)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(a)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(a)dunelm.org.uk

Gerard Meijssen

27 Mar 27 Mar

7:02 a.m.

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(a)dunelm.org.uk> wrote:

...

don't

point.

> > pb > > > *Philippe Beaudette * \\ Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia > Foundation, Inc. > T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | philippe(a)wikimedia.org | : > @Philippewiki<https://twitter.com/Philippewiki> > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, rupert THURNER > <rupert.thurner(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: > > > The "more and more" rules is also a concern i experience when

discussing

for

> > 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

> > > various languages and with very different opinions on the subject,

> > 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

> > > "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

skill

> > for > > > editors). I do not see that this trend necessary means higher

treshhold

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ,

> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org

?subject=unsubscribe>

> > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > Wikimedia-l(a)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(a)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(a)dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Andrew Gray

2:03 p.m.

Not trivially. The toolserver WP1.0 log records the last date the rating was altered, but this is done by watching the page and logging changes in a database. There's nothing on the wiki to indicate it in most cases, though GA/FA ratings are dated. Incidentally, for context, enwiki ran a "regrade or expand stubs" contest in December last year. Over a month, it removed (approximately) 50,000 stubs... which sounds great, and then you realise that the system still thinks there are 2,420,000 of them :-) Andrew. On 27 March 2014 06:02, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

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(a)dunelm.org.uk> wrote:

don't

point.

discussing

for

> > 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

> > > various languages and with very different opinions on the subject,

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

> > > "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

skill

> > for > > > editors). I do not see that this trend necessary means higher

treshhold

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ,

> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org

?subject=unsubscribe>

> > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > Wikimedia-l(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Michael Maggs

16 Apr 16 Apr

7:25 p.m.

New subject: Rating Wikimedia content (was Our next strategy plan-Paid editing)

On 26 Mar 2014, at 21:35, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)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(a)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#… The WMUK wiki page is here: https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Technology_Committee/Project_requests/WikiRat… 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

MZMcBride

26 Mar 26 Mar

1:40 a.m.

Anders Wennersten wrote:

...

Hi. Thanks for starting this thread. I think it's important to note that the paid contributions amendment discussion (or perhaps more accurately, the straw poll) was very heavily advertised, using a banner at the top of Wikimedia wikis for several weeks that displayed to both logged-in and logged out users (as is required for a change to the site terms of use). Due to the heavy advertising, it's no surprise there were several thousand participants, but that number needs context, of course. It may or may not be a good use of time and energy to address paid editing (or rather, paid advocacy) or article quality or any number of other strategic goals, but we shouldn't allow a heavily advertised discussion alone sway what we feel is important to focus on, particularly not without better understanding whether this specific set of self-selected people (i.e., people who saw the banner and decided to comment) is representative of the overall Wikimedia community. I personally agree that measuring and improving the quality of the work on Wikimedia wikis is important and deserves renewed focus as the next strategic planning process gets underway. Though as others in this thread have already noted, it's difficult to measure article (or transcript or dictionary entry or news story or data item or...) quality. And I'll add to this that the current Strategic Plan sets a fair number of goals that likely won't be reached, so we'll need to figure out whether the expectations and/or the resource allocation needs adjustment. MZMcBride

Federico Leva (Nemo)

4 p.m.

MZMcBride, 26/03/2014 01:40:

...

we shouldn't allow a heavily advertised discussion alone sway what we feel is important to focus on

I agree. In fact, as said yesterday, the WMF board could well refuse to discuss the ToU amendment if they feel it's not worth it. https://meta.wikimedia.org/?diff=prev&oldid=7954604 The same holds true for all the many topics some vocal or less vocal (groups of) persons ask the WMF board to do something about, of course. As long as it's clearly and transparently communicated what was included in or excluded from the agenda, there's nothing strange. A collegial body must have its own priorities and focus on those. Nemo

Gryllida

8:31 a.m.

On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, at 3:06, Anders Wennersten wrote:

...

The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1)

Maggie Dennis

4:38 p.m.

Gryllida, the section is here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendm… Maggie On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Gryllida <gryllida(a)fastmail.fm> wrote:

...

On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, at 3:06, Anders Wennersten wrote:

The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1)

I don't see my edit in the final archived version. Namely, the "What to ask to disclose: paid contributions or COI?" section I created. Link provided. I hope someone here can provide insight on where it's gone. https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contrib… _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- Maggie Dennis Senior Community Advocate Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

Gryllida

27 Mar 27 Mar

noon

Ah. Thanks! On Thu, 27 Mar 2014, at 2:38, Maggie Dennis wrote:

...

Gryllida, the section is here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendm… Maggie On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Gryllida <gryllida(a)fastmail.fm> wrote:

On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, at 3:06, Anders Wennersten wrote:

The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1)

-- Maggie Dennis Senior Community Advocate Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

3656

days inactive

3678

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

18 comments

14 participants

tags (0)

participants (14)

Anders Wennersten
Andrew Gray
Federico Leva (Nemo)
Gerard Meijssen
Gryllida
John Mark Vandenberg
Maggie Dennis
Marc A. Pelletier
Michael Maggs
MZMcBride
Pete Forsyth
Philippe Beaudette
rupert THURNER
Sage Ross