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

[Erinc Salor]

There was an article from 2008 with similar focus on the 'featured article'
process and quality.
May be interesting for comparison. Details are below and can also be found
at;
http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/short/25/2/262

Patterns of Revision in Online WritingA Study of Wikipedia's Featured
Articles*John Jones*

University of Texas at Austin

This study examines the revision histories of 10 Wikipedia articles nominated
for the site's Featured Article Class (FAC), its highest quality rating, 5
of which achieved FAC and 5 of which did not. The revisions to each article
were coded, and the coding results were combined with a descriptive analysis
of two representative articles in order to determine revision patterns. All
articles in both groups showed a higher percentage of additions of new material
compared to deletions and revisions that rearranged the text. Although the
FAC articles had roughly equal numbers of content and surface revisions, the
non-FAC articles had fewer surface revisions and were dominated by content
revisions. Although the unique features of the Wikipedia environment inhibit
strict comparisons between these results and those of earlier revision studies,
these results suggest revision in this environment places unique structural
demands on writers, possibly leading to unique revision patterns.

*Key Words:* collaborative online revision • composing online • new media •
wiki • network effects • Web 2.0

Written Communication, Vol. 25, No. 2, 262-289 (2008)

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Juliana Brunello <
juliana at networkcultures.org> 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.
>
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20100418/26f4e3e2/attachment.html>