Phil, Thanks for your note. I have not made any suggestion or concurrences yet, but suggest you edit your note: second paragraph: change"sighted" to "cited." "Sighted" is what happens to UFO's. "Cited" is what happens to reference articles. Otherwise, cool. BudgieBirdChan0211
----- Original Message ---- From: P. Birken pbirken@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Quality Discussions wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 6:13:17 AM Subject: [Wikiquality-l] Metrics for Testing of Flagged Revs
Hiho,
as most of you will have heard, flagged revisions were turned on on de.wikipedia.org. You can follow progress on http://tools.wikimedia.de/~aka/cgi-bin/reviewcnt.cgi. Now, it would be important to measure success of flagged revisions in some way. The following metrics come to my mind:
-Number of articles with a sighted revision (not very useful though, but measures acceptance among editors in a way.) -Number of articles that have a sighted revision but where the current version is not sighted -Time needed to sight revisions (max and mean of time until a revision by a noneditor is sighted. The mean is very difficult to get, but could be computed by using the mean of the pages in Spezial:OldReviewedPages) -Number of editors, meaning users who have the right to sight edits (again, acceptance but also to see if we hinder people in editing more than we should)
Do you have more ideas for metrics and how to measure them?
Best,
Philipp
_______________________________________________ Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
Hi,
2008/5/14 Norman Kelley pinot_chan0730@yahoo.com:
Thanks for your note. I have not made any suggestion or concurrences yet, but suggest you edit your note: second paragraph: change"sighted" to "cited." "Sighted" is what happens to UFO's. "Cited" is what happens to reference articles.
FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions/Sighted_versions
Bye, Tim.
No. "Sighted" as in "having been seen" not as in "including citations."
Mike
_____
From: Norman Kelley [mailto:pinot_chan0730@yahoo.com] Sent: May 14, 2008 11:13 AM To: Wikimedia Quality Discussions Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Metrics for Testing of Flagged Revs
Phil, Thanks for your note. I have not made any suggestion or concurrences yet, but suggest you edit your note: second paragraph: change"sighted" to "cited." "Sighted" is what happens to UFO's. "Cited" is what happens to reference articles. Otherwise, cool. BudgieBirdChan0211
----- Original Message ---- From: P. Birken pbirken@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Quality Discussions wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 6:13:17 AM Subject: [Wikiquality-l] Metrics for Testing of Flagged Revs
Hiho,
as most of you will have heard, flagged revisions were turned on on de.wikipedia.org. You can follow progress on http://tools.wikimedia.de/~aka/cgi-bin/reviewcnt.cgi http://tools.wikimedia.de/%7Eaka/cgi-bin/reviewcnt.cgi . Now, it would be important to measure success of flagged revisions in some way. The following metrics come to my mind:
-Number of articles with a sighted revision (not very useful though, but measures acceptance among editors in a way.) -Number of articles that have a sighted revision but where the current version is not sighted -Time needed to sight revisions (max and mean of time until a revision by a noneditor is sighted. The mean is very difficult to get, but could be computed by using the mean of the pages in Spezial:OldReviewedPages) -Number of editors, meaning users who have the right to sight edits (again, acceptance but also to see if we hinder people in editing more than we should)
Do you have more ideas for metrics and how to measure them?
Best,
Philipp
_______________________________________________ Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org