Many projects have installed a “popular pages” tool
highlighting which of
the pages with the talk page banner are most popular. It is updated monthly
(ish) see for example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Somerset/Popular_pages
so the toolserver tool at
https://toolserver.org/~alexz/pop/ may also be
useful.
On a more general point can I just ask why an
automated tool (using all
the suggested parameters) is likely to be any more accurate that the human
generated wikiproject rankings?
I think the idea is that, while it may be less accurate, it can be run
reliably on a much larger number of articles more frequently, so you do
things like, say, track the daily change in quality for the top 1000 viewed
articles.
Ed
*From:* wikimediauk-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
wikimediauk-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Edward Saperia
*Sent:* 17 April 2014 14:48
*To:* UK Wikimedia mailing list
*Subject:* Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Rating Wikimedia content (was Our next,
strategy plan-Paid editing)
It's interesting to think that in most circumstances, good online content
is considered to drive traffic, i.e. quality pages attract more views, but
with Wikipedia articles, I've only ever seen people think high traffic
articles => more editors => higher quality. This is intuitive, but it would
be interesting to see how true it is. It would also be interesting to see
what percentage of readers are editors by topic area; I suspect this would
vary a lot.
I always find it a bit of a shame that viewership figures are hidden away
in an unpublicised tool (
https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikiviewstats/). I
would have though seeing how many people view a page would be very
motivating to editors, and perhaps could be displayed prominently e.g. on
talk pages.
*Edward Saperia*
Chief Coordinator Wikimania London <http://www.wikimanialondon.org>
email <ed(a)wikimanialondon.org> •
facebook<http://www.facebook.com/edsaperia>
• twitter <http://www.twitter.com/edsaperia> • 07796955572
133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG
On 17 April 2014 14:34, Simon Knight <sjgknight(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think we’d want to distinguish between:
· Quality – taken from diff-features (i.e. Writing, but possibly
including Sources), and
· Significance – taken from Traffic, Edit History, and Discussion
The latter might be used to give a weighting to the high-significance
ratings such that high quality edits on highly significant articles are
rated higher, but that’s a secondary question.
You’re right that then there’s an interesting issue re: what’s output, and
how this is used. In this case our primary interest is in getting a feel
for what level of *quality *the *quantity *of WMUK related edits are. One
can easily imagine that being used by other chapters/orgs within the
movement, but it could of course also be spread outside of article writing
(e.g. any education assignment on a wiki) or/and be used by projects to
explore article qualities. I would guess that outputting discrete scores
for various things (e.g. ‘referencing’, ‘organisation’, etc.) and providing
some means to amalgamate those scores for an overview would be more useful
than just a raw ‘score’/rating. I’ll think about this a bit more over the
weekend I hope.
Cheers
S
*From:* wikimediauk-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
wikimediauk-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *John Byrne
*Sent:* 17 April 2014 13:46
*To:* wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
*Subject:* Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Rating Wikimedia content (was Our next,
strategy plan-Paid editing)
I must say I'm pretty dubious about this approach for articles. I doubt
it can detect most of the typical problems with them - for example
all-online sources are
very often a warning sign, but may not be, or may be inevitable in a
topical subject. Most of Charles' factors below relate better to views and
controversialness than article quality, and
article quality has a limited ability to increase views, as study of FAs
before and after expansion will show.
Personally I'd think the lack of 1 to say 4 dominant editors in the stats
is a more reliable warning sign than "A single editor, or essentially only
one editor with
tweaking" in most subjects. Nothing is more characteristic of a popular
but poor article than a huge list of contributors, all with fewer than 10
edits. Sadly, the implied notion (at T for Traffic below) that fairly high
views automatically lead to increased quality is very dubious - we have
plenty of extremely bad articles that have had by now millions of viewers
who have between them done next to nothing to improve the now-ancient text.
There is also the question of what use the results of the exercise will
be. Our current quality ratings certainly have problems, but are a lot
better than nothing. However the areas where systematic work seems to be
going on improving the lowest rated articles, in combination with high
importance ratings, are relatively few. An automated system is hard to
argue with, & I'm concerned that such ratings will actually
cause more problems than they reveal or solve, if people take them more
seriously than they deserve, or are unable to over-ride or question them.
One issue with the manual system is that it tends to give a greatly
excessive
weight to article length, as though there was a standard ideal size for
all subjects, which of course there isn't. It will be even harder for an
automated system to avoid the same pitfall without relying on the very
blunt instrument of our importance ratings, which don't pretend to operate
to common standards, so that nobody thinks that "high-importance" means, or
should mean, the same between say
WikiProject_Friesland<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiProject_Frieslan…
Wikiproject:Science.
John
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 19:53:20 +0100
From: Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>
There's the old DREWS acronym from How Wikipedia Works. to which I'd now
add T for traffic. In other words there are six factors that an experienced
human would use to analyse quality, looking in particular for warning signs.
D = Discussion: crunch the talk page (20 archives = controversial, while no
comments indicates possible neglect)
R = WikiProject rating, FWIW, if there is one.
E = Edit history. A single editor, or essentially only one editor with
tweaking, is a warning sign. (Though not if it is me, obviously)
W = Writing. This would take some sort of text analysis. Work to do here.
Includes detection of non-standard format, which would suggest neglect by
experienced editors.
S = Sources. Count footnotes and so on.
T = Traffic. Pages at 100 hits per month are not getting many eyeballs.
Warning sign. Very high traffic is another issue.
Seems to me that there is enough to bite on, here.
Charles
------------------------------
[image: Image removed by sender.] <http://www.avast.com/>
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast!
Antivirus<http://www.avast.com/>protection is active.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK:
https://wikimedia.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK:
https://wikimedia.org.uk
