Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Wikimedia-l] Rating Wikimedia content (was Our next strategy plan-Paid editing)

For media files there are two things we already have, size of the file and who created it. Filesize doesn't guarantee quality, but there must be a size below which we just have a blurry thumbnail. Assessing the possible quality of images by looking at how many other quality images have come from

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Wikimedia-l] Rating Wikimedia content (was Our next strategy plan-Paid editing)

Thanks Jonathan, I really like the photo-selection idea you suggest to onboard new editors. I wonder if anyone has thoughts on where this conversation should happen? I was going to say it'd be better on wiki than mailing list, but really both places suffer from the same problem. It may be very

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Wikimedia-l] Rating Wikimedia content (was Our next strategy plan-Paid editing)

One possible model of where this could head: Wikisource's ribbon system for indicating degree of proof-reading. Basically this is a traffic-light colour code. Pages that draw on several pages of an original book may be a mixture of text that is unproofed (red/pink), text that has been proof-read on

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Wikimedia-l] Rating Wikimedia content (was Our next strategy plan-Paid editing)

On 17 April 2014 08:11, Jonathan Cardy wrote: > For media files there are two things we already have, size of the file and > who created it. > > Filesize doesn't guarantee quality, but there must be a size below which we > just have a blurry thumbnail. Have a play with

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Wikimedia-l] Rating Wikimedia content (was Our next strategy plan-Paid editing)

That looks a very interesting tool. Definitely worth adding to the wiki page as related work that we could potentially make use of (if you permit, Fae; the source code is not open is it?) Michael > Have a play with >

[Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: [Wikimedia-l] Rating Wikimedia content (was Our next strategy plan-Paid editing)

Forwarding per Fæ's request... Begin forwarded message: > From: Fæ > Subject: Fwd: [Wikimediauk-l] [Wikimedia-l] Rating Wikimedia content (was Our > next strategy plan-Paid editing) > Date: 17 April 2014 10:09:14 BST > To: Michael Peel > > Hi Mike, could you repost this for me? Apparently I'm

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: [Wikimedia-l] Rating Wikimedia content (was Our next strategy plan-Paid editing)

On 17 April 2014 10:15, Michael Peel wrote: >> Hi Mike, could you repost this for me? Apparently I'm now banned from >> the UK list. Fae is not banned, but is on moderation, per previous discussion on list tone, as he started up again on wikimedia-l. I don't consider immediately starting up jus

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Wikimedia-l] Rating Wikimedia content (was Our next strategy plan-Paid editing)

On Thu, 17 Apr 2014, Jonathan Cardy wrote: For media files there are two things we already have, size of the file and who created it. Filesize doesn't guarantee quality, but there must be a size below which we just have a blurry thumbnail. This is only true of photographic images. Quality of

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Rating Wikimedia content (was Our next, strategy plan-Paid editing)

I must say I'm pretty dubious about this approach for articles. I doubt it can detect most of the typical problems with them - for example all-online sources are very often a warning sign, but may not be, or may be inevitable in a topical subject. Most of Charles' factors below relate better t

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Rating Wikimedia content (was Our next, strategy plan-Paid editing)

I think we’d want to distinguish between: · Quality – taken from diff-features (i.e. Writing, but possibly including Sources), and · Significance – taken from Traffic, Edit History, and Discussion The latter might be used to give a weighting to the high-significance ratings

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Rating Wikimedia content (was Our next, strategy plan-Paid editing)

It's interesting to think that in most circumstances, good online content is considered to drive traffic, i.e. quality pages attract more views, but with Wikipedia articles, I've only ever seen people think high traffic articles => more editors => higher quality. This is intuitive, but it would be

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Rating Wikimedia content (was Our next, strategy plan-Paid editing)

Many projects have installed a “popular pages” tool highlighting which of the pages with the talk page banner are most popular. It is updated monthly (ish) see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Somerset/Popular_pages so the toolserver tool at https://toolserver.or

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Rating Wikimedia content (was Our next, strategy plan-Paid editing)

In reply to: On a more general point can I just ask why an automated tool (using all the suggested parameters) is likely to be any more accurate that the human generated wikiproject rankings? It isn’t, but human generated rankings a) aren’t scalable over the larger corpus or across edit counts

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Rating Wikimedia content (was Our next, strategy plan-Paid editing)

On 17 April 2014 14:56, Rod Ward wrote: > Many projects have installed a “popular pages” tool highlighting which of > the pages with the talk page banner are most popular. It is updated monthly > (ish) see for example > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Somerset/Popular_pages >

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Rating Wikimedia content (was Our next, strategy plan-Paid editing)

On 17 April 2014 13:46, John Byrne wrote: > Most of Charles' factors below relate better to views and > controversialness than article quality, and > article quality has a limited ability to increase views, as study of FAs > before and after expansion will show. > I was of course giving the m

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Rating Wikimedia content (was Our next, strategy plan-Paid editing)

On 17 April 2014 14:48, Edward Saperia wrote: > > I always find it a bit of a shame that viewership figures are hidden away > in an unpublicised tool (https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikiviewstats/). I > would have though seeing how many people view a page would be very > motivating to editors, and per

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Rating Wikimedia content (was Our next, strategy plan-Paid editing)

Aha - not very discoverable though! *Edward Saperia* Creative Director Original Content London email • facebook • twitter • 07796955572 133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG On 17 April 201