Hello, Devender, and thank you for being interested in open source and in
Wikimedia!
Are you proposing to do this for *Wikipedia* specifically, or just as a
MediaWiki extension that any MediaWiki installation might choose to
install? If you want to do this to Wikipedia, then I think you haven't
thought enough about this:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Summer_of_Code_2013#Your_project
"MediaWiki != Wikipedia: YES to generic MediaWiki projects. YES to projects
already backed by a Wikimedia community. NO to projects requiring Wikipedia
to be convinced."
What you are proposing would require that you persuade the Wikipedia
community that it is a good idea. In our experience, one summer is not long
enough for you to do that and build it as well. If you want to change the
experience for ALL of the users of all the Wikimedia sites, you need a lot
of time for community discussion and design.
Let me give you some examples.
Good:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Summer_of_Code_2014#UniversalLanguageSelecto…
see that this is an idea for an improvement to the software that
simply
improves an existing experience. So that's fine.
Bad: "my idea is to change English Wikipedia so that instead of a main page
full of text, the main page is an interactive video/animation that
autoplays." (I, Sumana, made this up.) That idea is a bad fit for several
reasons, but the thing I would want to concentrate on here, Devender, is
that this video idea would require that the proposer negotiate with the
English Wikipedia community to get them to accept her idea and change the
way they do things.
For Google Summer of Code/OPW projects, it just seems like a bad idea -- it
doesn't seem like there would be enough time for that kind of consultation
and negotiation. It's reasonable for large, long-term projects (like the
VisualEditor or Flow or mobile editing/uploading) to have these kinds of
conversations, to work with the wiki communities to rearrange workflow, or
the basic way edits are displayed, or something like that. For Google
Summer of Code/OPW projects, it just seems like a bad idea -- it doesn't
seem like there would be enough time for that kind of consultation and
negotiation.
So, how can you get an idea that's good, and that makes it easier for
people to understand the quality of Wikipedia edits and Wikipedia edit
history, but that you can do in three months? If you are interested in
that, I suggest that you take a look at the existing projects at WMF
analytics
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Analytics , and the existing work
by researchers who care about this topic.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research That should give you some ideas.
Thanks again!
Sumana Harihareswara
Engineering Community Manager
Wikimedia Foundation
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:02 AM, Devender <dev.iitkgp.cse(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I am a 4th year student of the Department of Computer Science and
Engineering at Indian Institute of Technology( IIT), Kharagpur, India.
I am good at programming in PHP, MySQL, JavaScript, jQuery, HTML, CSS,
Java, C, C++ and Python. I have done all the important courses including
Machine Learning, Artificial Intelligence, Algorithms, Information
Retrieval, Natural language processing, Advanced Graph theory.
I am very enthusiast to work with Wikimedia in GSOC 2014. I have an idea
which I believe can help improve Wikipedia content:
I want to implement a ranking system of the editors(especially 3rd party
editors) of the Wikipedia through which viewers can differentiate between
the content of the page. This ranking system will
increase the content reliability. We can implement :
1. An extension which take all the editors information--
a. How many times editor has edited this particular page,
b. The number of pages he edited and editor's reputation( i.e number and
type of badge)
We can get this information from the "view history tab and then user info
from the user page" and generate a reliability score by using (i.e Data
clustering <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_analysis>) for every
line/paragraph of the content for all Wikipedia page. After installing this
extension, user right click on any line to see the reliability score, all
editor info and history in concise form.
2. Make the different color of the line/paragraph if the content of the
line/paragraph is very new and its reliability score is less.
Please let me if I should go with this idea. If not, guide me how to start
working on different idea.
Thanks and Regards
Devender (Linkedin
Profile<http://in.linkedin.com/pub/devender-bindal/27/70b/133/>
)
4th Year Student
Dual Degree(B.Tech+M.Tech)
Computer Science and Engineering
IIT Kharagpur
Phone +91-8967224480
Alternate Email *devender(a)cse.iitkgp.ernet.in
<devender(a)cse.iitkgp.ernet.in>*
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l