On Sat, Oct 25 2014, Ditty Mathew wrote: > 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.
To some extent I would agree with you, and there's a comparison of just this nature on pp. 96-98 of my thesis (http://oro.open.ac.uk/40775/). However, the classic Hannah Arendt [1] vs Pamela Anderson [2] example seems like it might be a challenge: I'd be curious to know which one of those articles your metrics would describe as better quality. And how would you compare those to the biography of Meridith L. Patterson [3]? Further, if you try to compare biographical articles with articles on technical topics, like the article on ultrafilters [3] mentioned in my thesis, then you'll really be comparing apples and oranges. At the very least it seems like you should take into consideration "network" properties of the article relative to other *related* articles -- although then you will quickly get into the business of evaluating sub-sections of the encyclopedia. You may also have to consider the role that the article is meant to play: e.g. is it just there to present simple facts, or is it meant to be more expository? A print encyclopedia would have zero links, and a given article might be "impressionistic" and still high-calibre: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2001/07/16/encyclopaedia-anderson Joe [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Arendt [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Anderson [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_L._Patterson [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrafilter _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
