Re: [Wiki-research-l] Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

2017-02-22 Thread Ed Saperia 
Here's an analysis of editor retention by an experienced game designer, from 
Wikimania 2014 - maybe a useful alternative perspective: 
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XwHH6935o00=ANyPxKoZi0X3rcWLT3K4m0QxTsbLXm4Wcj0gOSoEBSPW2_DU4u4VBVCwMd0_8bX-f6IuzJPTfGkf

Sent from my iPhone

> On 22 Feb 2017, at 08:25, Stuart A. Yeates  wrote:
> 
>> On 22 February 2017 at 16:40, David Goodman  wrote:
>> what mattered to me was personal appreciation of my work--just as it did in 
>> my primary career. Not form notices, but  individual public comments that 
>> from people who showed that they understood. There is no way of automating 
>> that. The virtues of wikiprojects  (and local meetups) is of extending that 
>> appreciation more broadly and more intensely.  
> 
> Automate, no. Encourage, yes.
> 
> I can imagine a tool that located editors working mainly in the area of a 
> wikiproject (i.e. 3/5ths of their last 50 edits over three or more weeks, 
> maybe) who had not had much recent obvious attention from other editors (no 
> third-party edits to their talk page in that time) and once a week send each 
> person signed up to the wikiproject a notification with a link to encourage 
> the wikiproject participant to give that editor feedback on their work. 
> 
> In short, a private prompt to send a public feedback. 95% of the feedback 
> would probably be positive, but it might also find one or two of the more 
> subtle types of vandal.
> 
> cheers
> stuart
> 
> 
> --
> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
>  
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Tool to find poorly written articles

2014-10-25 Thread Ed Saperia 

I agree with this *so much*. Give us infrastructure to make views, and we'll 
use it to make amazing things!

Sent from my iPhone

 On 25 Oct 2014, at 21:41, Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 I think it's pointless to argue over what we mean by quality or well
 written in general. It is fair to say that there are a lot of mechanically
 derivable metrics for articles including:
 
 * number of citations
 * number of unique citations
 * article length
 * density of citations, unique citations relative to article length
 * ditto for photos, infoboxes, navbox, categories etc
 * linguistic analysis like sentence length, Flesch-Kincaid readability
 scores
 * Age of article
 * Number of editors
 * Number of page views
 * Density of ...
 * number of reverts
 * reverts per editor/year/etc ..
 * number of inbound links, number of outbound links, number of redlinks
 * manual quality assessments (usually in project tags)
 * presence of issue tags, e.g. refimprove, citation needed, etc
 
 It seem to be that if we had a tool that could generate a wide range of
 these sort of metrics, folks could then put their own algorithm over the top
 to compute and weight whatever combination of them makes sense for their
 particular purpose.
 
 Kerry
 
 -Original Message-
 From: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
 [mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ziko van
 Dijk
 Sent: Saturday, 25 October 2014 11:28 PM
 To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
 Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Tool to find poorly written articles
 
 Okay. What do you think of the wikibu tool from Switzerland? It
 believes that the number of editors and readers etc are indicators for
 the quality, or at least a basis to discuss.
 Kind regards
 Ziko
 
 http://www.wikibu.ch/search.php?search=Frankfurter+Nationalversammlung
 
 2014-10-25 14:44 GMT+02:00 Ditty Mathew ditty...@gmail.com:
 Hi Ziko,
 
 You are right. But if the content of the article is very less or having
 less
 references, less edits, less no of images, less no of links etc, articles
 are of poor quality. Based on these factors, to some extent we can find
 the
 quality of article.
 
 with regards
 
 Ditty
 
 On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Hello Ditty,
 
 It is difficult for me to understand your question if you are not more
 specific of what you consider a poorly written article. Poorly can
 refer her to many different things, like readability, grammar,
 balance, statements supported by 'sources', good division of knowledge
 over several articles etc.
 
 I think that software tools can only give a hint, but the judgement
 (how good is an article) can be done only by a human, on the basis
 of concrete criteria what is meant to be good, and for what target
 group. I tend to say that some Wikipedia articles are good for
 experts but at the same time unsuitable for the general public.
 
 E.g., a software tool can count the words per sentence, but long
 sentences are not necessarily good or bad by themselves.
 
 Etc. :-)
 
 Kind regards
 Ziko
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2014-10-25 1:47 GMT+02:00 Joe Corneli holtzerman...@gmail.com:
 
 On Sat, Oct 25 2014, WereSpielChequers wrote:
 
 And just to add to the complexity of James' comments; there are some
 people
 who think that a general interest encyclopaedia should be written for
 a
 general audience. So articles with long sentences should be improved
 by
 rewriting into more but shorter sentences,
 
 How about an even simpler version of the problem: an encyclopedia
 written by robots for robots.  I speak, of course, of DBPedia.  We
 could
 equally ask, what makes for quality entries there?
 
 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
 
 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
 
 
 
 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
 
 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
 
 
 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l