[WikiEN-l] UIC Journal: Evaluating quality control of Wikipedia's feature[d] articles
I found this read from the University of Illinois at Chicago Journal interesting about the featured article process and how it does lack in certain areas, including a need for more subject-matter experts to look at these FAs: http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2721/2482 -MuZemike ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] UIC Journal: Evaluating quality control of Wikipedia's feature[d] articles
Interesting; it says that of 22 articles reviewed, 12 were found to not meet even Wikipedia's criteria for featured articles. The abstract advises scholars not to naively believe [Wikipedia's] assertions of quality. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] UIC Journal: Evaluating quality control of Wikipedia's feature[d] articles
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting; it says that of 22 articles reviewed, 12 were found to not meet even Wikipedia's criteria for featured articles. The abstract advises scholars not to naively believe [Wikipedia's] assertions of quality. Sorry, that was incorrect - 12 of 22 *did* pass the criteria, and the remainder did not. ~Nathan ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] UIC Journal: Evaluating quality control of Wikipedia's feature[d] articles
Three were on the fence so while the article may report a 55% success rate, it also is stating a 32% failure rate. ~A On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:33, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting; it says that of 22 articles reviewed, 12 were found to not meet even Wikipedia's criteria for featured articles. The abstract advises scholars not to naively believe [Wikipedia's] assertions of quality. Sorry, that was incorrect - 12 of 22 *did* pass the criteria, and the remainder did not. ~Nathan ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] UIC Journal: Evaluating quality control of Wikipedia's feature[d] articles
On 16 April 2010 16:38, Amory Meltzer amorymelt...@gmail.com wrote: Three were on the fence so while the article may report a 55% success rate, it also is stating a 32% failure rate. It's hard to tell from their scoring system which the three borderline ones were, though. Interestingly, the seven clear failures exhibit a strong correlation between quality and time - the points get lower as they get older. For the other articles, there's little or no correlation between the time since they passed FAC (or FAR) and their quality. http://www.generalist.org.uk/blog/2010/quality-versus-age-of-wikipedias-featured-articles/ I suspect this points up a problem with maintenance more than initial quality, but we shall see. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] UIC Journal: Evaluating quality control of Wikipedia's feature[d] articles
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: Interestingly, the seven clear failures exhibit a strong correlation between quality and time - the points get lower as they get older. For the other articles, there's little or no correlation between the time since they passed FAC (or FAR) and their quality. http://www.generalist.org.uk/blog/2010/quality-versus-age-of-wikipedias-featured-articles/ I suspect this points up a problem with maintenance more than initial quality, but we shall see. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk I had the same thought - the [[Max Weber]] article had the lowest (and lowest possible) score of 1. This article was promoted following a nomination from Piotrus in September 2006, and it's had some substantial revisions since then. On the other hand, Piotrus remains actively involved - his last edit to this article was this past April 8th. Given the continuous involvement of the primary author, the problem here may reflect evolving standards of quality more than maintenance. Nathan ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] UIC Journal: Evaluating quality control of Wikipedia's feature[d] articles
http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2721/2482 I found three quotes quite interesting: David Archer [...] remarked that he could tell [the article on global warming] was not written by professional climate scientists[.] Among the articles that did not score as well, several of the expert reviewers compared the articles to the work of high school students or university undergraduates. Several others also noted the problems associated with non-expert authors, noting that the sources used were poorly selected and not representative of the broader literature. All three of these criticisms, of course, are the almost inevitable result of some of our most strongly-held policies: * We have no requirement that articles be written by experts in the field; indeed we tend to discourage experts. * Even if you deny the existence of an anti-expert bias, the fact that we're the encyclopedia that anyone can edit virtually guarantees a certain mediocrity -- an article's quality does not increase monotonically until it is near-perfect, but rather, oscillates around a mean quality which is determined by all the editors who contribute to it over time (many of whom, yes, will be high school students or university undergraduates). * Our vociferous insistence on sources guarantees that some (if not many) of them will be poorly selected. (And, of course, these policies of ours are cherished for some pretty good reasons; I'm not trying to criticize either us or this critic.) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] UIC Journal: Evaluating quality control of Wikipedia's feature[d] articles
Andrew Gray wrote: On 16 April 2010 16:38, Amory Meltzer amorymelt...@gmail.com wrote: Three were on the fence so while the article may report a 55% success rate, it also is stating a 32% failure rate. It's hard to tell from their scoring system which the three borderline ones were, though. Interestingly, the seven clear failures exhibit a strong correlation between quality and time - the points get lower as they get older. For the other articles, there's little or no correlation between the time since they passed FAC (or FAR) and their quality. http://www.generalist.org.uk/blog/2010/quality-versus-age-of-wikipedias-featured-articles/ I suspect this points up a problem with maintenance more than initial quality, but we shall see. Doesn't have to be a single-factor explanation: the goalposts are undoubtedly moved as far as quality at time of assessment is concerned; some writers of FAs will continue to work on them while others will devote time to other articles; some past FAs will be neglected because the editors mainly concerned are no longer around. In terms of project management (not that we do any such thing) what conclusions to draw? We certainly have seen little cost-benefit analysis on the FA system as a whole. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] robotically generated content
But it would seem the technology is still some way off. I don't know. I think I have found a good use for it. http://cpedia.com/search?q=wikipedia+talk This way, I can monitor all the talk pages I usually watch without having to go to them individually! -- Shirik ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] UIC Journal: Evaluating quality control of Wikipedia's feature[d] articles
FWIW I noticed that there was actually a FA review recently where the article actually meets a deletion criteria, but it was simply delisted for insufficient references. The FA review criteria doesn't emphasise checking things like that, and the kinds of people that do reviews seem to care mainly about having one reference per sentence. On 16/04/2010, MuZemike muzem...@gmail.com wrote: I found this read from the University of Illinois at Chicago Journal interesting about the featured article process and how it does lack in certain areas, including a need for more subject-matter experts to look at these FAs: http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2721/2482 -MuZemike ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- -Ian Woollard ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] robotically generated content
I find Cpedia rather...hilarious, for some reason. I don't see the point to it, otherwise. Emily On Apr 15, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Del Buono, Matthew Paul wrote: But it would seem the technology is still some way off. I don't know. I think I have found a good use for it. http://cpedia.com/search?q=wikipedia+talk This way, I can monitor all the talk pages I usually watch without having to go to them individually! -- Shirik ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] robotically generated content
On 16 April 2010 20:25, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote: I find Cpedia rather...hilarious, for some reason. I don't see the point to it, otherwise. You'll love this blog entry: http://www.cuil.com/info/blog/2010/04/13/cpedia-and-its-detractors He fails to realise the *only* people spreading the word of mouth about Cuil are those who find it ridiculously surreal. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] robotically generated content
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 5:07 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: You'll love this blog entry: http://www.cuil.com/info/blog/2010/04/13/cpedia-and-its-detractors He's not too far off the mark with some of his comments in that blog; it's an unfortunate side effect of the style of communication the Internet encourages that experimentation is often subject to vitriol and mocking instead of thoughtful criticism. Personally, I think the potential constituents for online sources of information only benefit from this type of work. This first public draft of a computer generated encyclopedia is deeply flawed, but it has some design elements we could really learn from -- and even its initial failure has lessons for people interested in the wide dissemination of knowledge. Nathan ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] robotically generated content
On 04/16/2010 03:09 PM, Nathan wrote: http://www.cuil.com/info/blog/2010/04/13/cpedia-and-its-detractors He's not too far off the mark with some of his comments in that blog; it's an unfortunate side effect of the style of communication the Internet encourages that experimentation is often subject to vitriol and mocking instead of thoughtful criticism. I think there are ways to signal that you are doing something as an experiment and with the requisite humility. A good example is Google Sets, which is part of Google Labs: http://labs.google.com/sets One of their earliest public experiments, they made clear that it was a trial with no practical purpose. Of course, the technology behind it surely found its way into some search-related magic. But they don't present it as anything more than it is. And because of that, people gave it 4.5 stars out of 5. Cuil, on the other hand, took an interesting technology and pretended they had a Wikipedia competitor. They call it an encyclopedia, they name it Cpedia, and they make it look like an encyclopedia. But it's full of junk. So naturally, people compare it with an actual encyclopedia and laugh at it. And then the CEO suggests that the people criticizing them just don't understand the problems involved, and until they do they should shut up. That is roughly the same way they failed to build a search engine, and it is pretty much the opposite attitude to the one that has made Wikipedia so strong: our incredible ambition and substantial pride is balanced by frankness, a deep willingness to be self-critical, and and ongoing invitation to others to help us improve things. Cuil could use some of that, but I expect they'll burn through what remains of their $33m before they close down forever, going the way of Pets.com. And I'll point out that $33m is not far off from the total amount ever spent on Wikipedia, so it's a pretty big crater. William ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] robotically generated content
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 7:29 PM, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote: I think there are ways to signal that you are doing something as an experiment and with the requisite humility. A good example is Google Sets, which is part of Google Labs: http://labs.google.com/sets One of their earliest public experiments, they made clear that it was a trial with no practical purpose. Of course, the technology behind it surely found its way into some search-related magic. But they don't present it as anything more than it is. And because of that, people gave it 4.5 stars out of 5. Cuil, on the other hand, took an interesting technology and pretended they had a Wikipedia competitor. They call it an encyclopedia, they name it Cpedia, and they make it look like an encyclopedia. But it's full of junk. So naturally, people compare it with an actual encyclopedia and laugh at it. And then the CEO suggests that the people criticizing them just don't understand the problems involved, and until they do they should shut up. That is roughly the same way they failed to build a search engine, and it is pretty much the opposite attitude to the one that has made Wikipedia so strong: our incredible ambition and substantial pride is balanced by frankness, a deep willingness to be self-critical, and and ongoing invitation to others to help us improve things. Cuil could use some of that, but I expect they'll burn through what remains of their $33m before they close down forever, going the way of Pets.com. And I'll point out that $33m is not far off from the total amount ever spent on Wikipedia, so it's a pretty big crater. William That is a fair and thoughtful indictment of their approach. I have no particular problem with the other comments in this thread either -- they weren't all substantial criticism, but that's fine as far as it goes. A lot of other reactions, however, could be boiled down to You poopy head idiots! or some slight variation. The simple truth is that most business fail, and few attempts at innovation penetrate into general popularity. Yet we should, and often do, encourage innovation and entrepreneurial efforts because - even when they fail - such efforts contribute to their field. Remarks that insult the people behind Cpedia and Cuil as stupid or senseless can't be taken seriously, and they deserve the Cuil CEO's disdain. Nathan ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] robotically generated content
On 17 April 2010 01:05, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: That is a fair and thoughtful indictment of their approach. I have no particular problem with the other comments in this thread either -- they weren't all substantial criticism, but that's fine as far as it goes. A lot of other reactions, however, could be boiled down to You poopy head idiots! or some slight variation. The simple truth is that most business fail, and few attempts at innovation penetrate into general popularity. Yet we should, and often do, encourage innovation and entrepreneurial efforts because - even when they fail - such efforts contribute to their field. Remarks that insult the people behind Cpedia and Cuil as stupid or senseless can't be taken seriously, and they deserve the Cuil CEO's disdain. I'd call your attention to the last comment on the CEO's post: pointing out that what they've done here is create a search-engine spam engine. The only way to monetise this thing would be to put bottom-feeding ads all over it in the hope of attracting search terms. And the Cuil search engine is still the shining example of why Cuil Theory exists. It's comically awful and is most useful to point the kids at and tell them Google got popular by not sucking like that. It is true that failure is important to future success; but one very important thing about failure, particularly large and spectacular failure is that it is - in fact - failure. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Citizendium dead?
In March 2010, about 90 people made even a single edit to Citizendium: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Statistics#Number_of_authors Compare Conservapedia, which has 76 at the time I write this. The difference is, the latter is pretty much a personal website run by a gibbering fundie lunatic which gets pretty much all its traffic from sceptics making fun of it; the former was a serious project. This is terribly sad. What went wrong? - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium dead?
According to that stats page, the project added 7.7k words per day during March 2010 - the most since September 2009. Unless I miss the meaning of the words per day column, that seems to show that the project is at least no worse off this year than last. There seems to be a winter dip in editing, and a pickup in the spring - and March 10 comes in considerably ahead of March 09. Nathan ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium dead?
On 17 April 2010 03:57, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: According to that stats page, the project added 7.7k words per day during March 2010 - the most since September 2009. Unless I miss the meaning of the words per day column, that seems to show that the project is at least no worse off this year than last. There seems to be a winter dip in editing, and a pickup in the spring - and March 10 comes in considerably ahead of March 09. The long tail is gone: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Image:New_users.png - it's now a playground for a small closed circle of contributors. Someone on [[Talk:Citizendium]] says as much. But, what of it? they then ask. That it has let itself become a project of no effective import. If it's not dead, it's moribund. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
