Research talk:Interpolating quality dynamics in Wikipedia and demonstrating the Keilana Effect

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Feedback[edit]

This is a great paper. A few suggestions and open questions:

  • " forms the infrastructural role" <-- awkward phrasing
  • "Article quality dynamics" is this the right term? Maybe use "editor collaboration dynamics" instead? It sounds like the dynamics you're talking about all have to do with who contributes, and how.
  • Regarding problems with WP10 assessments: what about the problem that there's no review process, no assurance that the assessor is following the rules or understanding the rules correctly, leading to wide variations qualitative assessment ratings between articles?
  • Clarify this: "E.g. vandalism and other damaging edits to an article might also change the features extracted favorably since they are arguably quite basic" <-- example of 'quite basic' here?
  • Missing/extra word in this sentence: "To arrive at the weighted sum measurement, we and multiply the prediction probability for each class by an enumeration of classes starting at zero (0) for Stub and ending at five (5) for FA."
  • Awkward phrasing: "Wikipedia's "category" usage is notoriously useless"
  • Avoid using scare quotes for "category" and "template". Define the terms instead, or just assume your reader knows what you're talking about.
  • In the "Discussion" section, perhaps refer to your previous point about the role of "article quality dynamics". The creation of a Wikiproject devoted to Women Scientists likely changed the article quality dynamics around this topic.
  • Regarding sources of bias in the model: what if high-quality WS articles are being singled out for extra scrutiny by people not affiliated with the project (say, GamerGate sympathizers and yes I know that sounds conspiracy-minded but just spitballing here) who go around adding lots of citation needed or "this page has multiple issues" templates to these articles? Wouldn't that lead to a lower quality prediction at the FA class?
  • A slightly less conspiracy-minded idea for sources of bias in the model: Assuming Women Scientists contains many more newer articles (written in the past 5 years) than most other WikiProjects. What if all newer articles that try to achieve a high level of completeness/quality face more scrutiny (more templating, per above) in 2013-2017 than those which achieved that level of quality earlier on in the encyclopedia's history?

Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

You're lovely and I really owe you for this. Thank you! --EpochFail (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Marie Curie[edit]

Excellent work. I guess you meant w:en:Marie Curie and not Murie Curie? --Netha Hussain (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)