As another note, quality can be typically associated with something
of high value. The problem is that
value is vague and a subjective concept. Determining the value of a
particular object\page to a
particular individual is impossible at best. However, there are
numerous proxy features for value.
One such feature is popularity and that's what the page rank
algorithm gets at. Another such feature
is the number of readers who navigate to a page -- this is sort of
like popularity except that it also
encompasses the many eyes principle (the more people see an article,
the better it will become (i.e.
it will become of higher quality)).
Of course this may be disputed, but if you think value is what you're
really trying to get at, a potential
direction is to go with page views (e.g. as do Priedhorsky et. al. in
"Creating, Destroying, and Restoring
Value in Wikipedia." -- http://tinyurl.com/269lpq
On Nov 9, 2007, at 2:08 AM, John Erling Blad wrote:
I believe that a correct evaluation of article quality must be
with writers reputation and most likely also how the writer interacts
with other users. The article itself also don't exist in a vacuum, as
you suggest in the final notes about the PageRank algorithm. Incoming
links are very useful for evaluating the article quality, but it takes
time for them to emerge. It is therefore highly likely that it will be
necessary to use different approaches to asses the article quality,
only given the category for the article but also given the age of the
A lot of those measures will interact. For example person A writes the
article but has previously written articles that don't rate as very
due to factual errors. He does although write good English (most
thats not me.. ;) Now person B writes rotten English (oh, thats
writes factual correct articles. Because of his very bad English other
contributors reverts his edits or rewrites them. Both of these two
persons will rank very badly, and their articles even worse. Still,
they team up they can produce excellent articles.
When I first started to look into estimating writers reputation and
article quality I expect to find some fairly obvious features to use.
What I did find was that there was several connected systems, and that
all of them (at least the most prominent ones) should be taken into
account. Still there will be a fairly large number of erroneous
Several collaborators and I are preparing to
expand on previous work
to automatically ascertain the quality of Wikipedia articles on the
English Wikipedia (presented at Wikimania '07 ). PageRank is
Google's hallmark quality metric, and the foundation actually has
access to these numbers through the Google Webmaster Tools
a foundation representative were to create a Google account and
that they were a "webmaster," they could download the PageRank for
every article on the English Wikipedia in a convenient tabular
This data would likely serve as a fantastic predictor. I would also
like to compare the Google-computed PageRank to the PageRank computed
via Wikipedia's internal link structure. I don't see any privacy
implications in releasing this data. It also doesn't seem to help
spammers much, as they already know the pages that have a very high
PageRank, and we include rel="nofollow" on outbound links.
Nonetheless, I would of course be willing to keep the data private.
This would only take a few minutes if it were approved. Is anyone out
there who has the power to make it happen?
Wikiquality-l mailing list
Wikiquality-l mailing list