<CPOV> Evaluating quality control of Wikipedia's feature articles

[Felipe Ortega]

On jue, 2010-04-15 at 17:30 +0200, Juliana Brunello wrote:
> The research idea is indeed interesting. However, it is not representative
> enough. Only 22 articles were analyzed, all in the english wp. Also,
> grading from 1 to 10 can be quite a subjective matter. I believe such
> research should be further developed in order to deliver a better
> knowledge of wp's FAs.

I totally agree with your review. Moreover, this excerpt is really
confusing:

"It is worth noting that many of the articles assessed did score quite
well, proving that Wikipedia’s contributors can produce very good
articles. The articles receiving lower scores, however, show quite
convincingly that Wikipedia’s attempt at quality control is failing".

Since this accounts for 7 out of 22 (31.8%) it is hardly believable how
this can shows that the whole process is failing (even less if we
consider that the sample is far from representative, both in quantity
and scope of content).

Best,
Felipe.

> Juliana
> 
> > Hello,
> >
> > This paper, published in the last edition of First Monday, may interest
> > you.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Bia
> >
> > ====================================================================
> >
> > Evaluating quality control of Wikipedia's feature articles
> > *David Lindsey*
> >
> > Abstract
> > The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Wikipedia’s
> > internal quality control mechanism, the “featured article” process, which
> > assesses articles against a stringent set of criteria. To this end,
> > scholars
> > were asked to evaluate the quality and accuracy of Wikipedia featured
> > articles within their area of expertise. A total of 22 usable responses
> > were
> > collected from a variety of disciplines. Out of the Wikipedia articles
> > assessed, only 12 of 22 were found to pass Wikipedia’s own featured
> > article
> > criteria, indicating that Wikipedia’s process is ineffective. This finding
> > suggests both that Wikipedia must take steps to improve its featured
> > article
> > process and that scholars interested in studying Wikipedia should be
> > careful
> > not to naively believe its assertions of quality.
> >
> > Full Text:
> > HTML<http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2721/2482>
> >
> > http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2721/2482
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list
> > Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com
> > http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list
> Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com
> http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20100416/2cdb0a86/attachment.sig>