Talk:Quality/en
Our problem with quality is not unlike the problem of obesity in the United States: we have an over-abundance, and perhaps a lot more than we deserve. This state of affairs was underscored in a recent study where medical doctors indicated they preferred starting with Wikipedia, often more than they stated they preferred starting with PubMed, the popular index to the peer reviewed secondary medical literature. According to Wikipedia's own standards, this indicates that we may have more credibility than quality. That needs to be balanced. 99.35.128.135 17:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I made a little template to put on pages like Wikiversity:Quality that link to corresponding pages here. Just trying to be a catalyst. --CQ
- I think that's a great template, and a wonderful idea. I'm going to modify it, and take it over to meta. :) -- Philippe 22:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I think it sounds good but I would keep it more on topic.98.180.2.118 19:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Contents
| Thread title | Replies | Last modified |
|---|---|---|
| Interested in quality or reader participation? We need your help! | 0 | 05:58, 18 November 2011 |
| Why Wikipedia Articles Vary So Much In Quality | 3 | 21:59, 7 March 2010 |
Hey guys; the WMF is working on a new version of the Article Feedback Tool, with the aim of getting more readers providing feedback and, hopefully, more readers turning into editors. It's primarily en-centric at the moment, but it may be rolled out elsewhere (after localisation, assuming it works, etc), so if this is a field you're interested in, your comments at the talkpage are very much welcome :). Give the proposal a read and tell us what you think! Okeyes (WMF) 05:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
This story on Slashdot and the three studies it links to are filled with interesting statistics about quality. I was particularly impressed with Nagaraj et al's development of a Gini coefficient for articles, but the Lui and Ram paper on PDF pages 13-18 is the primary focus of the Slashdot story. 99.22.95.69 21:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The main issues are:
- Decay - as an article improves, it becomes harder to improve a given article.
- Coverage - frequently examined articles on major historical figures receive a lot of coverage, while more obscure topics do not.
The only way to boost an article from low to high quality (or limited content to significant content) is to have several people working on it at once. This may have to be part of a class project, as with one wikibook, but is still largely a volunteer effort.
This could be helped by introducing a means to encourage editors to update articles needing copyedit/cleanup/content - while most wikis already have something in place, the quantity of tags may cause a multi-year backlog. Actively directing readers to these tags may help on the quality side, and would also combat the eventual activity drop until an idea comes up to permanently fix that as well.
Team work.
I edited in ad-hoc teams as a "content justifier/bringer" with one or two "all-rounders/copy-editors" each time and it work rather well. On one side the outward with finding contents & references and the other side the inward with putting the contents together into something accessible and pleasant to read.
