Following up Kerry's comments: far more useful to our encyclopedia building project would not be a global importance assessor, but a assessor of which wikiprojects a page is likely to be of interest to. There are hundreds of thousands of en.wiki pages which are not tagged properly to their wikiprojects and are thus effectively invisible to the community of editors who case about them.
This is a classic example of statistical classification, so it shouldn't be too technically difficult... cheers stuart -- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky On 28 April 2017 at 12:28, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raym...@gmail.com> wrote: > I observe (and am unsurprised) that WikiProject Australia also rates the > Pavlova article as High importance, which demonstrates into the Stuart's > comments about graphs and subgraphs. If there are relationships between > WikiProjects, there is probably some correlation about importance of > articles as seen by those projects. As it happens, WikiProject Australia > and WikiProject New Zealand are related on Wikipedia only by both being > within the category "WikiProject Countries projects" (along with every > other national WikiProject), so this is an example where you cannot see the > connection between these projects "on-wiki" but anyone who knows anything > about the geography, history, and culture of the two countries will > understand the close connection (e.g. ANZAC, sheep, pavlova, rugby union) > but, as the project tagging will show, we do have our differences, e.g. > Whitebait is a High Importance article for NZ but Oz doesn't even tag it > (we don't share the NZ passion for these small fish). And perhaps more > seriously, our two countries have different indigenous peoples so our > project tagging around Maori (NZ) and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander > (Oz) articles would usually be quite disjoint. > > So if there are correlations between project tagging, it may be something > exploitable in machine assessment of importance. > > Kerry > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] > On Behalf Of Stuart A. Yeates > Sent: Friday, 28 April 2017 6:18 AM > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities < > wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Project exploring automated classification > of article importance > > On em.wiki article importance is relative to some wikiproject. This is > encoded in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:WPBannerMeta which > appears on 16% of all wikipedia pages via specialisations such as > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:WikiProject_New_Zealand > > Within Wikiproject New Zealand, there are articles which we think are very > important to us, which we would never argue are even marginally important > on a global scale. Take for example > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlova_(food) > > For the mathematically inclined, this is a classic case of graph and many > subgraphs. > > cheers > stuart > > > -- > ...let us be heard from red core to black sky > > On 27 April 2017 at 21:44, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hoi, > > I have read the proposal and it leaves me wondering. Also the notion > > of importance is indeed neither easy nor obvious. I think the question > > what is most important is irrelevant depending on how you look at it. > > Subject can be irrelevant when you look at it from a personal > > perspective, looking at it from a particular perspective and indeed > > what seems relevant may become irrelevant or relevant over time. When > > you use metrics there will always be one way or another why it will be > found to be problematic. > > > > When you consider Wikipedia, the difference it makes with similar > > resources is that its long tail is so much longer and still it is easy > > and obvious to show how the English Wikipedia's long tail is not long > > enough [1]. When you are looking for links and relevance, Wikidata > > includes data on all Wikipedias and thereby more avenues to establish > relevance. > > > > Research has been done that shows that when people are suggested to > > write articles or amend articles, it works best when it is about > > subjects they care about. What people are interested in was based in > > the research on past behaviour. What we could do is flip this and ask > > people. Based on categories, on projects, whatever people do to > > categorise what is their interest. This will work on a micro level. On > > a meta level, it may drive cooperation when we enable people to share > > their interest (at that moment in time). On a macro level data may > > arrive at Wikidata and this will allow us to seek what articles > > include specific data (think date of death for instance). On a meta > > and macro level, we could ask readers what subjects they are missing. > > This would provide an additional incentive for people to write. For this > last suggestion we could measure what people are missing. > > > > Anyway, relevance and importance depend on a point of view. When our > > community is enabled to make a difference, it will help us with our > > content. As a movement we know that there is enough that we do not > > properly cover. Advocating these issues and targeting and educating > > potential communities is where the WMF could play more of a role. > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > > > > > > > [1] > > http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/04/wikidata- > > user-stories-sum-of-all.html > > > > On 26 April 2017 at 13:48, Jonathan Cardy > > <werespielchequ...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > I like to think that in time importance will win out over > > > popularity. If Wikipedia still exists in fifty of five hundred years > > > time and we are > > still > > > using pasteurisation and indeed still eating hydrocarbon based > > > foods, > > then > > > I suspect the pop group you mention will be less frequently read > > > about > > than > > > the pasteurisation process. > > > > > > In the meantime if we try to work it out at all it has to be > > > something of a judgement call, and one we will occasionally get > > > wrong. Any guesses as > > to > > > which current branches of science will be as forgotten in a century > > > as phrenology is today? > > > > > > At an extreme the weekly top ten most viewed articles are a good > > > guide to what is trending in the popular cultures of India and the > > > USA. I'm > > assuming > > > that most modern pop culture is inherently ephemeral. Of course > > > digital historians of future centuries may be rolling on the floor > > > laughing at > > this > > > email, and the TV dramas currently being filmed may still be widely > > studied > > > and universally known classics while our leading edge science lies > > > buried in the foundations of their science. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Jonathan > > > > > > > > > > On 26 Apr 2017, at 08:50, Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes I totally agree that "importance is a relative metric rather > > > > than absolute." I also agree that incoming links and pageviews are > > > > not > > > accurate > > > > measurements of "importance" for all of the reasons you mention. > > However, > > > > we are still a project that is actively exploring the universe of > > > > knowledge, and leaning heavily on academia and other established > > sources > > > we > > > > must "boldly go where no man has gone before" (and please feel > > > > free to insert "white, euro-centric" before the man part). So do > > > > you have any suggestions what we could measure going forward that > > > > would cough up > > some > > > > interesting stats to monitor? Pagewatching is useful , but > > > > problematic because these are only assigned at page-creation, > > > > while some marginal editor interest might be expanded to whole > > > > categories (speaking as > > > someone > > > > who has thousands of pages watchlisted on multiple projects). I > > > > like > > your > > > > thoughts about looking for key articles such as those used as the > > > "article > > > > as the "main" article for a category or as the title of a navbox > > > > ". I > > am > > > > looking for similar usages of paintings as a way to find popular > > painters > > > > or paintings rather than just those paintings which have articles > > written > > > > about them (which are often written for totally random reasons > > > > such as theft/sale/wikiproject). > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Kerry Raymond < > > kerry.raym...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Just a few musings on the issue of Importance and how to research > > > >> it > > ... > > > >> > > > >> I agree it is intuitive that importance is likely to be linked to > > > >> pageviews and inbound links but, as the preliminary experiment > > > >> showed, > > > it's > > > >> probably not that simple. > > > >> > > > >> Pageviews tells us something about importance to readers of > > > >> Wikipedia, while inbound links tells us something about > > > >> importance to writers of Wikipedia, and I suspect that writers > > > >> are not a proxy for readers as > > the > > > >> editor surveys suggest that Wikipedia writers are not typical of > > broader > > > >> society on at least two variables: gender and level of education > > (might > > > be > > > >> others, I can't remember). > > > >> > > > >> But I think importance is a relative metric rather than > > > >> absolute. I > > > think > > > >> by taking the mean value of importance across a number of > > > >> WikiProjects > > > in > > > >> the preliminary experiment may have lost something because it > > > >> tried (through averaging) to look at importance "generally". I > > > >> would suspect conducting an experiment considering only the > > > >> importance ratings wrt > > to > > > a > > > >> single WikiProject would be more likely to show correlation with > > > pageviews > > > >> (wrt to other articles in that same WikiProject) and inbound links. > > And > > > I > > > >> think there are two kinds of inbound links to be considered, > > > >> those > > > coming > > > >> from other articles within the same WikiProject and those coming > > > >> from outside that Wikiproject. I suspect different insights will > > > >> be > > obtained > > > by > > > >> looking at both types of inbound links separately rather than > > > >> treating > > > them > > > >> as an aggregate. I note also that WikiProjects are not entirely > > > independent > > > >> of one another but have relationships between them. For example, > > > >> The WikiProject Australian Roads describes itself as an > > > >> "intersection" (ha > > > ha!) > > > >> of WikiProject Highways and WikiProject Australia, so I expect > > > >> that we would find greater correlation in importance between > > > >> related > > > WikiProjects > > > >> than between unrelated WikiProjects. > > > >> > > > >> When thinking about readers and pageviews, I think we have to ask > > > >> ourselves is there a difference between popularity and > > > >> importance. Or whether popularity *is* importance. I sense that, > > > >> as a group of > > educated > > > >> people, those of us reading this research mailing list probably > > > >> do > > think > > > >> there is a difference. Certainly if there is no difference, then > > > >> this research can stop now -- just judge importance by > > > >> pageviews. Let's > > > assume > > > >> a difference then. When looking at pageviews of an article, they > > > >> are > > not > > > >> always consistent over time. Here are the pageviews for > > > >> Drottninggatan > > > >> > > > >> https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en. > > > >> wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range= > > > >> latest-90&pages=Drottninggatan > > > >> > > > >> Why so interesting on 8 April? A terrorist attack occurred there. > > > >> This spike in pageviews occurs all the time when some topic is in > > > >> the news > > > (even > > > >> peripherally as in this case where it is not the article about > > > >> the terrorist attack but about the street in which it occurred). > > > >> Did the > > > street > > > >> become more "important"? I think it became more interesting but > > > >> not > > more > > > >> important. So I think we do have to be careful to understand that > > > pageviews > > > >> probably reflect interest rather than importance. I note that > > > >> The Chainsmokers (a music group with a number of songs in the > > > >> current USA > > > music > > > >> charts) gets many more Wikipedia article pageviews than the > > > >> Wikipedia article on Pasteurization but The Chainsmokers are not > > > >> rated as being > > of > > > >> high importance by the relevant WikiProjects while Pasteurization > > > >> is > > > very > > > >> important in WikiProject Food and Drink. Since pasteurisation > > prevents a > > > >> lot of deaths, I think we might agree that in the real world > > > pasteurisation > > > >> is more important than a music group regardless of what pageviews > > > >> tell > > > us. > > > >> > > > >> https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en. > > > >> wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range= > > latest-90&pages=The_ > > > >> Chainsmokers|Pasteurization > > > >> > > > >> Of course it is matters for Wikipedia's success that our > > > >> *popular* articles are of high quality, but I think we have be > > > >> cautious about pageviews being a proxy for importance. > > > >> > > > >> When we look at Wikipedia writers' decisions in tagging the > > > >> importance > > > of > > > >> articles to WikiProjects, what do we find? As we know, project > > > >> tags > > are > > > >> often placed on new articles (and often not subsequently > > > >> reviewed). So while I find that quality tags are often > > > >> out-of-date, the importance > > > seems > > > >> to be pretty accurate even on a new stub articles. This is > > > >> because it > > is > > > >> the importance of the *topic* that is being assessed which is > > > independent > > > >> of the Wikipedia article itself. Provided the article is clear > > > >> enough > > > about > > > >> what it is about and why it matters (which is the traditional > > > >> content > > of > > > >> that first paragraph or two and failing to provide it will likely > > > result in > > > >> speedy deletion of the new article), assessment of the topic's > > > importance > > > >> can be made even at new stub level. This tells us that importance > > > >> for Wikipedia writers is determined by something outside of > > > >> Wikipedia > > > (probably > > > >> their real-world knowledge of that topic space -- one assumes > > > >> that > > > project > > > >> taggers are quite interested in the topic space of that project). > > While > > > >> article quality hopefully improves over time, I would be > > > >> surprised if article importance greatly changed over time. > > > >> Obviously there are counter-examples. I am guessing Donald > > > >> Trump's article may have grown > > > in > > > >> importance over time but that's probably because his lede para > > changed. > > > >> Adding President of the USA into the lede paragraph makes him > > > >> much > > more > > > >> important than he was before in the real world and internal to > > > Wikipedia he > > > >> has acquired an inbound link from the presumably high-importance > > > President > > > >> of the USA article. So I think it might be interesting to study > > > >> those articles whose importance does change over time to see if > > > >> there are > > any > > > >> strong correlations with what is happening to the article inside > > > Wikipedia. > > > >> I think it is this set of importance-changing articles may be > > > >> where we really learn what Wikipedia article characteristics are > > > >> strongly > > > correlated > > > >> to "importance" given that importance itself appears to be pretty > > stable > > > >> for most articles. > > > >> > > > >> Although not stated explicitly, I imagine we believe that > > > >> generally > > less > > > >> important articles tend to link to more important articles but > > > >> more important articles don't link to less important articles. > > > >> And hence in-bound links are likely to matter in assessing > > > >> importance and that in-bound links from "important" articles are > > > >> more valuable than > > in-bound > > > >> links from less important articles (which creates something of a > > > >> bootstrapping problem) similar to the issue to Google's PageRank > > > >> algorithms. But I think we do have some information that Google > > doesn't > > > >> have. The average webpage does not have a lede paragraph that > > > >> situates > > > the > > > >> topic relative to other topics; a Wikipedia article does. If I > > > >> have to choose to define Thing X in terms of Thing Y, it tends to > > > >> suggest that > > > Y is > > > >> more important than X. If Y also defines itself in terms of X, > > > >> then it tends to suggest they are equivalent in importance at some > way. > > Indeed I > > > >> suspect when we get to the VERY IMPORTANT topics we will see this > > > >> kind > > > of > > > >> circular definition (e.g. you see circular definitions in > > > >> Wikipedia > > > around > > > >> Philosophy and Knowledge). Aside, if you have never done this > > > >> before, > > > try > > > >> this experiment. Choose a random article (left hand tool bar in > > Desktop > > > >> Wikipedia), then click the first link in the article that matters > > (i.e. > > > >> ignore links hatnotes or links inside parentheses). Repeat this > > > >> first > > > link > > > >> clicking and sooner or later you will reach articles like > > > >> Knowledge > > and > > > >> Philosophy, which all sit inside circular definition groups. > > > >> > > > >> If we look at the Donald Trump article, his first sentence > > > >> contains > > only > > > >> two links, one to List of Presidents of the USA and the other to > > > President > > > >> of the USA. If we look at the those two articles, we find that > > > >> both of > > > them > > > >> mention Donald Trump in their lede paras (although not as early > > > >> as the first sentence) and before mentions of any other US > > > >> President > > elsewhere > > > in > > > >> the article. Which is consistent with what we know about the real > > world, > > > >> the role of the President is more important than its > > > >> officeholders and > > > that > > > >> the current officeholder has more importance than a past > officeholder. > > > So > > > >> topic importance does seems to be skewed towards the "present day". > > > >> > > > >> So I suspect the links in the lede paras are of greater relevance > > > >> to > > the > > > >> assessment of importance than links further down in the article > > > >> which > > > will > > > >> be more likely relate to details of a topic and may include > > > >> examples > > and > > > >> counter-examples (this is a way in which high importance article > > > >> may mention much lower importance articles). However, we do have > > > >> to be a > > > little > > > >> bit careful here because of the MoS practice of not linking very > > common > > > >> terms. For example, an Australian article will often refer to > > Australia > > > in > > > >> the lede para but it will almost certainly not be linked to the > > > Australia > > > >> article (and any attempt to add such a link will likely see it > > > >> removed > > > with > > > >> an edit summary that mentions [[WP:Overlinking]]) whereas there > > > >> is no problem if you link to an Australian state article, e.g. > > > >> New South > > > Wales. > > > >> So we might find that some very important topics that often > > > >> appear in > > > ledes > > > >> might get fewer links that you might expect because of the MoS > > policies > > > on > > > >> overlinking, which may be problem when working with inbound > > > >> links. It > > > may > > > >> be that for "very common topics" the presence of the article > > > >> title (or > > > its > > > >> synonyms) in the lede may have to be considered as if it were an > > > in-bound > > > >> link for statistical research purposes. > > > >> > > > >> Given all of the above, perhaps the most interesting group of > > > >> articles > > > to > > > >> study in Wikipedia are those articles whose manually-assessed > > importance > > > >> has changed over the life of the article AND which were NOT > > > >> current > > > topics > > > >> in the lifetime of Wikipedia (given the influence of "current" on > > > >> importance). But having said that, I wonder if that group of > > > >> articles actually exists. Recently a newish Australian > > > >> contributor expressed disappointment that all the new articles > > > >> they had created were tagged > > > (by > > > >> others) as of Low Importance. My instinctive reply was "that's > > normal, I > > > >> think of the thousands of articles I have started only a couple > > > >> even > > > rated > > > >> as Mid importance, this is because the really important articles > > > >> were > > > all > > > >> started long ago precisely because they were important". I > > > >> suspect > > > topics > > > >> that are very important (for reasons other than being short-lived > > > >> importance due in being "current" in the lifetime of Wikipedia) > > > >> will generally show up as having started early in Wikipedia's > > > >> life and that those that become more/less important over time > > > >> will be largely linked > > > to > > > >> becoming or ceasing to be "current" topics). E.g. article > > Pasteurization > > > >> started in May 2001 saying nothing more than " Pasteurization is > > > >> the process of killing off bacteria in milk by quickly heating it > > > >> to a > > near > > > >> boiling temperature, then quickly cooling it again before the > > > >> taste > > and > > > >> other desirable properties are affected. The process was named > > > >> after > > its > > > >> inventor, French scientist Louis Pasteur. See also dairy products." > > The > > > >> links in this very first version are still present in its lede > > paragraph > > > >> today, suggesting our understanding of "non-current" topics is > > > >> stable > > > and > > > >> hence initial importance determinations can probably be > > > >> accurately > > made. > > > >> For Pasteurization the Talk page shows it was not project-tagged > > > >> until > > > 2007 > > > >> when it was assigned High Importance as its first assessment. > > > >> > > > >> I suspect we will find that initial manual assessment of article > > > >> importance will be pretty accurate for most articles. And I > > > >> suspect if > > > we > > > >> plot initial importance assessments against time of assessment, > > > >> we > > will > > > >> find the higher importance articles commenced life on Wikipedia > > earlier > > > >> than the lower importance articles. If I am correct, then there > > > >> isn't > > a > > > lot > > > >> of value in machine-assessment of importance of topics because it > > > relates > > > >> to factors external to Wikipedia and often does not change over > > > >> time > > and > > > >> therefore can often be correctly assessed manually even on new > > > >> stub articles (and any unassessed articles can probably be rated > > > >> as Low Importance as statistically that's almost certainly going > > > >> to be > > > correct). > > > >> If a topic becomes more important due to "current" events, then > > > invariably > > > >> that article will be updated by many people and one of them will > > sooner > > > or > > > >> later manually adjust its importance. What is less likely to > > > >> happen is re-assessing downwards of Importance when an important > > > >> "current" topic loses its importance when it is no longer > > > >> current, e.g. are former > > > American > > > >> presidents like Barack Obama or George W Bush or further back > > > >> less important now? These articles will not be updated frequently > > > >> once the > > > topic > > > >> is no longer in the news and therefore it is less likely an > > > >> editor > > will > > > >> notice and manually downgrade the importance, so there may be a > > greater > > > >> role for machine-assessment in downgrading importance rather than > > > upgrading > > > >> importance. > > > >> > > > >> Another area where there might be a role for machine-assessed > > importance > > > >> in regards to POV-pushing where an POV-motivated editor might > > > >> change > > the > > > >> manual-assessment importance of articles to be higher or lower > > > >> based > > on > > > >> their POV (e.g. my political party is Top Importance, other > > > >> parties > > are > > > of > > > >> Low Importance). I suspect that often a page watcher would > > > >> correct or > > at > > > >> least question that kind of re-assessment. However, articles with > > > >> few active pagewatchers you might get away with POV-pushing the > > > >> article's importance tag because nobody noticed. In this > > > >> situation, a machine assessment could be useful in spotting this > kind of thing. > > > >> > > > >> This suggests that another metric of interest to importance might > > > >> be number of pagewatchers, although I suspect that pagewatching > > > >> may > > relate > > > >> more to caring about the article than to caring about the topic. > > > >> And > > one > > > >> has to be careful to distinguish active pagewatchers (those who > > > actually do > > > >> review changes on their watchlists) from those who don't, as that > > > >> may > > > make > > > >> a difference (although I am not sure we can really tell which > > > pagewatchers > > > >> are truly actively reviewing as a "satisfactory review" doesn't > > > >> leave > > a > > > >> trace whereas an "unsatisfactory" review is likely to lead to a > > > relatively > > > >> soon revert or some other change to the article, the article Talk > > > >> or > > the > > > >> User Talk of reviewed contributor which may be detectable). > > > >> > > > >> The other aspect of articles that occurs to me as being possibly > > linked > > > to > > > >> importance of the topic would be use of the article as the "main" > > > article > > > >> for a category or as the title of a navbox (as it suggests that > > > >> the articles in the category or navbox are in some way > > > >> subordinate to the main/title article). Similarly for list > > > >> articles, the "type" of the > > > list is > > > >> often more important than its instances). > > > >> > > > >> Kerry > > > >> > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l- > > > boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] > > > >> On Behalf Of Morten Wang > > > >> Sent: Friday, 21 April 2017 6:04 AM > > > >> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities < > > > >> wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > > > >> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Project exploring automated > > > classification > > > >> of article importance > > > >> > > > >> Hi Pine, > > > >> > > > >> These are great pointers to existing practices on enwiki, some of > > which > > > >> I've been looking for and/or missed, thanks! > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Cheers, > > > >> Morten > > > >> > > > >>> On 19 April 2017 at 22:35, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Hi Nettrom, > > > >>> > > > >>> A few resources from English Wikipedia regarding article > > > >>> importance > > as > > > >>> ranked by humans: > > > >>> > > > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vital_articles > > > >>> > > > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_ > > > >>> Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Criteria#Priority_of_topic > > > >>> > > > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_ > > assessment#Statist > > > >>> ics > > > >>> > > > >>> I infer from the ENWP Wikicup's scoring protocol that for > > > >>> purposes of the competition, an article's "importance" is > > > >>> loosely inferred from the number of language editions of > > > >>> Wikipedia in which the article > > > >> appears: > > > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring#Bonus_po > > > >>> ints > > . > > > >>> > > > >>> HTH, > > > >>> > > > >>> Pine > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Morten Wang > > > >>>> <nett...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Hello everyone, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I am currently working with Aaron Halfaker and Dario > > > >>>> Taraborelli at the Wikimedia Foundation on a project exploring > > > >>>> automated classification of article importance. Our goal is to > > > >>>> characterize the importance of an article within a given > > > >>>> context and design a system to predict a relative importance > > > >>>> rank. We have a project page on meta[1] and welcome comments > > > >>> or > > > >>>> thoughts on our talk page. You can of course also respond here > > > >>>> on wiki-research-l, or send me an email. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Before moving on to model-building I did a fairly thorough > > > >>>> literature review, finding a myriad of papers spanning several > > > >>>> disciplines. We have > > > >>> a > > > >>>> draft literature review also up on meta[2], which should give > > > >>>> you a reasonable introduction to the topic. Again, comments or > > > >>>> thoughts > > > (e.g. > > > >>>> papers we’ve missed) on the talk page, mailing list, or through > > > >>>> email are welcome. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Links: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Automated_ > > > >>>> classification_of_article_importance > > > >>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Automated_ > > > >>>> classification_of_article_importance> > > > >>>> 2. > > > >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Studies_of_Importance > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Regards, > > > >>>> Morten > > > >>>> [[User:Nettrom]] aka [[User:SuggestBot]] > > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>>> 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
