Hi Anders, Yes, it's a great question! Mark Graham and I are currently working on a project around how to determine quality within and between Wikipedias and I've been looking around for literature. I'm only just starting the literature review but I've found some interesting studies by Callahan & Herring (2011) [1] and Stvilia, Al-Faraj, and Yi (2009) [2]. The majority of quality studies, we find, have been done on English Wikipedia (starting with the famous 2005 Nature study) but there have been few studies that assess of quality between languages. If you find anything else, let us know!
Thanks! Best, heather. [1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.21577/abstract [2] http://www.researchgate.net/publication/200773220_Issues_of_cross-contextual_information_quality_evaluation_-_The_case_of_Arabic_English_and_Korean_Wikipedia/file/60b7d51ae682e9912a.pdf Heather Ford Oxford Internet Institute <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk> Doctoral Programme EthnographyMatters <http://ethnographymatters.net> | Oxford Digital Ethnography Group <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115> http://hblog.org | @hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa> On 10 June 2014 07:58, Anders Wennersten <m...@anderswennersten.se> wrote: > (reposted from Wikimedia-i) > > I have several times asked for a professional quality study of our > different language versions, but not seen it exist or being done, perhaps > you know more on this list?. before we start the strategy work I believe > we should have basic facts on the table like this one > > I therefor list here my subjective impression after daily looking into the > different version for 5-15 articles (new ones being created on sv.wp) (I > list them in order how often I use them to calibrate the svwp articles). > > enwp- a magnitude better then any other. main weakeness are articles on > marginal subjects that seems to be allowed to exist there, even if rather > bad, and without templates (noone cares to patrol these?) > > eswp - a very good version, which in the general discussion are not > getting appropriate credit > > dewp - good when the articles exist, but many serious holes. Is the > elitist way of running it, discouraging new editors in non obvious subjects > (that after time passes gets very relevant)? > frwp - also good, but somewhat scattered quality both in coverage and the > different articles (even in same subject area) > nlwp - very good coverage in the geographic subjects, decent quality on > articles but limited "world" coverage in areas like biographies > itwp - good articles but a bit italiancentered, > > nowp - small but decent articles. Their short focused articletext > sometimes give more easyaccessed knowledge then an overly long one in other > languages > > ptwp - the real disappointment. it is among the top ten in volume and > accesses but clearly missing a lot, and even existing articles are uneven. > I now use it even less then Ukrainian and Russian which I use very seldom > as the different alphabet makes it hard to understand the article content > > dawp,fiwp and plwp -Ok but only used by me for articles related to the > country > > (arabic, chinese and japanese I almost never use, too complicated) > > (I also use some smaller ones like sqwp , in these versions I have seen > serious quality problems not to be found in any of the above ones, I am not > sure they even have basic patrolling in place) > > Anders > > _______________________________________________ > 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
