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