Dear John and all,
With regard to your discussion on examining Wikipedia article quality,
the idea somehow overlaps with our intuition of measuring article
quality based on the authority of authors/reviewers. We have been
researching from this perspective. Below attached is the abstract of our
research paper, titled "Measuring Article Quality in Wikipedia: Models
and Evaluation", published in CIKM 2007:
Wikipedia has grown to be the world largest and busiest free
encyclopedia, in which articles are collaboratively written and
maintained by volunteers online. Despite its success as a means of
knowledge sharing and collaboration, the public has never stopped
criticizing the quality of Wikipedia articles edited by non-experts and
inexperienced contributors. In this paper, we investigate the problem of
assessing the quality of articles in collaborative authoring of
Wikipedia. We propose three article quality measurement models that make
use of the interaction data between articles and their contributors
derived from the article edit history. Our Basic model is designed based
on the mutual dependency between article quality and their author
authority. The PeerReview model introduces the review behavior into
measuring article quality. Finally, our ProbReview models extend
PeerReview with partial reviewership of contributors as they edit
various portions of the articles. We conduct experiments on a set of
well-labeled Wikipedia articles to evaluate the effectiveness of our
quality measurement models in resembling human judgment.
We would appreciate your comments and suggestion.
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:00:39 +0100
From: John Erling Blad <john.erling.blad(a)jeb.no>
Subject: [Wikiquality-l] Checking article quality through number of
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Is there anyone that has done any research on how the number of visitors
relates to the article quality? I believe it is related somehow but I'm
not sure how it can be modeled. It works by counting the visitors that
reads a particular segment of the article, and then will accept the
particular segment as correct when a sufficient number of visitors has
been visiting. It can work together with a system for writer grading,
were this system will change the grade from whatever the writer has.
Compared to this a "stable versions" is like having a visitor with
ultimate power to mark the revision as good. This system does not give
the visitors such ultimate power, and in fact will not give give them
more than a small fraction of the power necessary to claim the revision
is free of vandalism. Combined I guess it is possible to make a system
that will be better than anyone of them alone.
Any real vandalism will most likely never be marked as good, because the
limit can be set so high that it will be found by someone long before it
is marked as "patrolled", and then most likely nothing or very little of
the revision will survive so the revision itself will never be marked as
patrolled. If a known good writer contributes a revision, then it will
get a flying start and it will need few visitors ("anonymous
patrollers") before it is marked as "good". If the writer is unknown the
revision will need a lot of visitors before it is marked as good.
Even very seldom read articles have several visitors each week, and
through a year this will add up to a considerable amount of visitors.
Show replies by date