I oppose such idea or implementation, automating ranking of content sounds like
a way to get people focus on the rank/score aggressively instead of human work
on content. They already focus on 'number of GA reviews' and 'number of FAs I
contributed to', relying on style and content guides for these more than on the
concept of freedom of knowledge. I had created
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Karma recently in an attempt to start gathering
examples of such blindly misleading work.
If implemented, I dare to ask that the thing is opt-in...
On Fri, 7 Mar 2014, at 10:25, Quim Gil wrote:
> Hi Devender, I'm not a developer but I hope my feedback as editor is useful.
>
> On 03/06/2014 12:02 AM, Devender wrote:
> > I want to implement a ranking system of the editors(especially 3rd party
> > editors) of the Wikipedia through which viewers can differentiate between
> > the content of the page.
>
> What do you mean with "3rd party editors"?
>
>
> > This ranking system will increase the content reliability
>
> Content reliability is indeed an interesting value for wiki content,
> especially in projects like Wikipedia. However, basing the reliability
> of the content on the quantity of edits done by an editor is risky --to
> say the least.
>
> Reliability is based on quantity, not quality. If you would find a way
> to assess the quality of the editions of an editor (and therefor the
> reliability of an editor)... Then maybe you could provide a hint about
> the reliability of an article based on the reliability of the editors
> that edited it.
>
> Even in that case it might be complex to figure out when the reliable
> editors are acting to add more quality to an already good article, or to
> fix the worst issues of a horrible article. When they add and when they
> revert...
>
> And of course it may also happen that editors not identified as reliable
> produce great content, as it often the case with editors very
> specialized in certain topic, with a short history of excellent edits.
>
> > 2. Make the different color of the line/paragraph if the content of the
> > line/paragraph is very new and its reliability score is less.
>
> Even if there is some probability that older paragraphs that have
> survived many edits intact are somewhat reliable, it is too easy to find
> examples disproving this point. This is true especially in the articles
> needing more a quality assessment, those that are not edited often and
> are not watched by many experienced editors.
>
>
> > Please let me if I should go with this idea. If not, guide me how to start
> > working on different idea.
>
> This is just my personal opinion and I'm not an expert. Maybe someone
> else will ave a different, more positive opinion about your project, or
> advice to re-focus it.
>
> In general, students proposing new projects have more chances of success
> if they start pitching and testing their ideas months before the GSoC.
> Add a factor of x5 at least if your main target is a Wikimedia project.
>
> If you don't get mentors for your project very soon, then the safest
> option is to choose a project at
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Summer_of_Code_2014 and go for it.
>
> Thank you for your interest in contributing to Wikimedia. Also thank you
> for following my suggestion to post at wikitech-l. I hope you wll get
> more feedback from other people in this list.
>
> --
> Quim Gil
> Technical Contributor Coordinator @ Wikimedia Foundation
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil
>
> ___
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> Email had 1 attachment:
> + signature.asc
> 1k (application/pgp-signature)
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
