On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 9:53 AM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequers(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Re other dimensions or heuristics:
Very few articles are rated as Featured, and not that many as Good, if you
are going to use that rating
system<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Tea…
suggest also including the lower levels, and indeed whether an article
has been assessed and typically how long it takes for a new article to be
assessed. Uganda for example has 1 Featured article, 3 Good Articles and
nearly 400 unassessed on the English language
Wikipedia<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UGANDA#Recognized_cont…
.
For a crowd sourced project like Wikipedia the size of the crowd is
crucial and varies hugely per article. So I'd suggest counting the number
of different editors other than bots who have contributed to the article.
Except why would this be something that would be an indicator of quality?
I've done an analysis recently of football player biographies where I
looked at the total volume of edits, date created, total number of
citations and total number of pictures and none of these factors correlates
to article quality. You can have an article with 1,400 editors and still
have it be assessed as a start. Indeed, some of the lesser known articles
may actually attract specialist contributors who almost exclusively write
to one topic and then take the article to DYK, GA, A or FA. The end result
is you have articles with low page views that are really great that are
maintained by one or two writers.
Whether or not a Wikipedia article has references is a
quality dimension
you might want to look at. At least on EN it is widely assumed to
be a measure of quality, though I don't recall ever
seeing a study of the
relative accuracy of cited and uncited Wikipedia information.
Yeah, I'd be skeptical of this overall though it might be bad. The problem
is you could get say one contentious section of the article that ends up
fully cited or overcited while the rest of the article ends up poorly
cited. At the same time, you can get B articles that really should be GAs
but people have been burned by that process so they just take it to B and
left it there. I have heard this quite a few time from female Wikipedians
operating in certain places that the process actually puts them off.
--
twitter: purplepopple
blog:
ozziesport.com