Quality/bg

In other languages: English (en) español (es) français (fr) 日本語 (ja) македонски (mk) português (pt) svenska (sv) | Add translation [edit]

For early discussions, see m:Quality

Note: This page is a work in process and all of the analysis shown is in a preliminary stage

Strategic Questions

What initiatives should Wikimedia consider to extend the scope and relevance of its content?
How can Wikimedia continue to improve the perceived and actual quality of its content?
Wikipedia is asymptotically documenting all human knowledge: A lack of original research will therefore become its principle limit. Should wikimedia sponsor a system ranking and calling for original research to be done? Tim Bates 10:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Supporting analysis questions

These are the questions that will guide analysis. Click through "Content" and "Quality" to access the data and research that have been compiled so far.

Content

What is the content landscape in which Wikimedia operates?
- Types and categories of content
- Sources of content by type and category
- Relevant trends in content and content sourcing (e.g. digital textbooks)

What is Wikimedia’s current position in this content landscape?
- Current content penetration by category
- Sources of existing content
- Initiatives currently underway or planned

What options does Wikimedia have for extending the scope of its content?

What initiatives could Wikimedia consider to support this scope extension?
- Partnerships (e.g. with content institutions, educational institutions, libraries, online encyclopedias)
- Others TBD

What is the potential impact of these content initiatives?
- Likely impact on content scope
- Resource requirements and funding availability
- Benefits and/or risks (for reach, participation, etc)

Quality

What is the quality landscape in which Wikimedia operates?
- Quality criteria (e.g. accurate, credible, complete, neutral)
- Audience/stakeholder expectations (including online context)
- Changes/trends over time

What is Wikimedia’s current position in this quality landscape?
- Perceived vs. actual
- Key challenges (e.g. translations)
- Comparisons to relevant benchmarks

What quality control/assurance initiatives are already in place, or are being tested by Wikimedia and the community?
- How effective is the combination of requiring references, and allowing not merely peer-review, but peer-editing in sustaining accuracy?
- Often the quality problem is not getting quality in, but stopping subtle entropic processes of noise and vandalism: could a loss of entropy be detected in articles?
  - An obvious loss is the loss of a reference from an article: this is/can be flagged automagically for followup.

What approaches to quality control/assurance could Wikimedia consider to improve actual and perceived quality?
- Current initiatives underway/tried within Wikipedias (e.g. flagged revisions)
- Other initiatives tried in the field
- Others TBD

What is the potential impact of these quality control/assurance approaches?
- On content scope/generation
- On reach and participation
- On perceptions of key stakeholders

Where are the most salient intersections between content and quality?
- Quality vs. quantity debate

Resources

Flagged Revisions

m:FlaggedRevs_Report_December_2008 -- Basic overview of flagged revisions feature in German Wikipedia

File Types on Wikimedia Commons

Content Partnerships

German Wikipedia partnerships:

Postmortem on attempt to create illustrations using $20K restricted donation in 2007.