Charles Thanks, some excellent points there. To ensure they are not overlooked I’ve copied your entire text, below, to the talk page [1]. Hope that’s OK.
Michael [1] https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Talk:Technology_Committee/Project_requests/WikiRate_-_rating_Wikimedia#Comment_by_Charles_Matthews_.28copied_from_wikimediauk-l.29 On 16 Apr 2014, at 19:53, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > There's the old DREWS acronym from How Wikipedia Works. to which I'd now add > T for traffic. In other words there are six factors that an experienced human > would use to analyse quality, looking in particular for warning signs. > > D = Discussion: crunch the talk page (20 archives = controversial, while no > comments indicates possible neglect) > R = WikiProject rating, FWIW, if there is one. > E = Edit history. A single editor, or essentially only one editor with > tweaking, is a warning sign. (Though not if it is me, obviously) > W = Writing. This would take some sort of text analysis. Work to do here. > Includes detection of non-standard format, which would suggest neglect by > experienced editors. > S = Sources. Count footnotes and so on. > T = Traffic. Pages at 100 hits per month are not getting many eyeballs. > Warning sign. Very high traffic is another issue. > > Seems to me that there is enough to bite on, here. > > Charles
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
