2009/8/28 Gregory Maxwell <gmaxw...@gmail.com>: > This is somewhat labor intensive, but only somewhat as it doesn't take > an inordinate number of samples to produce representative results. > This should be the gold standard for this kind of measurement as it > would be much closer to what people actually want to know than most > machine metrics.
To get a fair sample we would need to include some highly active pages. They have ridiculous numbers of revisions (even if you restrict it to the last few months). > If the results of this kind of study have good agreement with > mechanical proxy metrics (such as machine detected vandalism) our > confidence in those proxies will increase, if they disagree it will > provide an opportunity to improve the proxies. This kind of intensive study on a few small sample with a more automated method used on the same sample to compare would be more achievable. If the automated method gets similar results, we can use that method for larger samples. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
