Hi James, first of all, congrats for proving this to be possible. As it has already been said it is an achievement nothing short of great.
2014-10-04 15:47 GMT+02:00 James Heilman <jmh...@gmail.com>: > I agree all Wikipedia articles are sort of peer reviewed. When I speak > about GA/FA I refer to it as Wikipedia's semi-formal peer review process. > > With respect to authorship, the 5th to 10th contributors by number of > editors were contacted and asked if they wished to be listed as an author. > All of them declined feeling that they had not contributed sufficiently to > justify being listed. You mean by number of edits? (I do not understand what you mean with "by number of editors"). I think this is a reasonable criteria. (We may discuss on the results, i.e. everybody declined, so Wikipedian!) Anyway I would like to suggest other metrics that could be used as a measure of paternity of the article, e.g. bytes added or removed[1], I would point you to Dario Taraborelli and the analytics teams for other ideas. It also worth pointing out for the readers of this thread that there is not a single version of the article [[Dengue Fever]] that is identical to the article published (see [[Talk:Dengue fever]] here[2]), although I would like to be pointed to one (or a set of) closest version(s). (Finding automatically close versions would be super interesting). Thanks. Cristian [1] http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADengue_fever&diff=628032710&oldid=628012705 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
