depth

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
17 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

depth

Przykuta
Hi

look at ksh wiki

http://s23.org/wikistats/wikipedias_html.php?sort=good_desc

good: 10032
total: 508246
edits: 1135239

depth: 5509 :)

best regards

przykuta

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: depth

Thomas Dalton
2009/3/21 Przykuta <[hidden email]>:

> Hi
>
> look at ksh wiki
>
> http://s23.org/wikistats/wikipedias_html.php?sort=good_desc
>
> good: 10032
> total: 508246
> edits: 1135239
>
> depth: 5509 :)
>
> best regards
>
> przykuta

zh-classical also has an unusually high depth (for a Wikipedia with a
significant number of articles). Unfortunately, I don't speak either
language so I'm not entirely sure what is going on, but it seems that
the ksh figure may be to do with articles like this one:

http://ksh.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C4%97%C3%9F%C3%9F_met_Affk%C3%B6%C3%B6zonge_u%C3%9F_dr%C3%AB%C4%B3_Boochshtabe_med_U_amm_Anfang

It seems to be some kind of index system, there are enormous numbers
of pages and redirects related to it, none of which qualify as "good
articles" under the definition used on that stats page, so skew the
depth figure.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: depth

Marcus Buck-2
In reply to this post by Przykuta
Przykuta hett schreven:

> Hi
>
> look at ksh wiki
>
> http://s23.org/wikistats/wikipedias_html.php?sort=good_desc
>
> good: 10032
> total: 508246
> edits: 1135239
>
> depth: 5509 :)
Recipes:
- don't delete bad stuff, instead tag it as being bad (in the category
for deletion requests, there are still open requests from May 2007 and
the main active admin knows about it, cause I told him, but he doesn't care)
- create masses of redirects for different spellings of this
non-standardized language (up to 17,000 for a single page ->
<http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=ReDirBot>)

Marcus Buck
User:Slomox

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: depth

M. Williamson
17,000 for a single page!? Wow.

I don't think redirects should impact depth, though. If they do, we're
calculating wrong I think.


2009/3/21 Marcus Buck <[hidden email]>:

> Przykuta hett schreven:
>> Hi
>>
>> look at ksh wiki
>>
>> http://s23.org/wikistats/wikipedias_html.php?sort=good_desc
>>
>> good: 10032
>> total: 508246
>> edits: 1135239
>>
>> depth: 5509 :)
> Recipes:
> - don't delete bad stuff, instead tag it as being bad (in the category
> for deletion requests, there are still open requests from May 2007 and
> the main active admin knows about it, cause I told him, but he doesn't care)
> - create masses of redirects for different spellings of this
> non-standardized language (up to 17,000 for a single page ->
> <http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=ReDirBot>)
>
> Marcus Buck
> User:Slomox
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: depth

Thomas Dalton
Woa! You managed to force my email client into right-to-left mode
there and I could get it back without deleting all the quoted text...
Could you please set your email client to left-to-right when writing
in English, please?

Redirects are counted in depth because they aren't articles. It is an
extremely simplistic measure and one I completely ignore. I think the
idea is that non-article pages mean there is lots of collaboration
going on but actually it is edits to non-article pages that means
that. Non-article pages created once and ignored increase depth while
doing very little to improve the project.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: depth

Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada
In reply to this post by Przykuta
My question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Purodha&diff=prev&oldid=261483386

His answer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Purodha&diff=next&oldid=261483386 


Przykuta escribió:

> Hi
>
> look at ksh wiki
>
> http://s23.org/wikistats/wikipedias_html.php?sort=good_desc
>
> good: 10032
> total: 508246
> edits: 1135239
>
> depth: 5509 :)
>
> best regards
>
> przykuta
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>  


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: depth

Thomas Dalton
2009/3/23 emijrp <[hidden email]>:
> My question:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Purodha&diff=prev&oldid=261483386
>
> His answer:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Purodha&diff=next&oldid=261483386

Seems sensible. The only real disadvantage is that it messes up the
depth statistic and I, for one, can live with that.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: depth

M. Williamson
I think we should find a way to exclude redirs from depth stats.

Mark

2009/3/23 Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>:

> 2009/3/23 emijrp <[hidden email]>:
>> My question:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Purodha&diff=prev&oldid=261483386
>>
>> His answer:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Purodha&diff=next&oldid=261483386
>
> Seems sensible. The only real disadvantage is that it messes up the
> depth statistic and I, for one, can live with that.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: depth

Thomas Dalton
2009/3/23 Mark Williamson <[hidden email]>:
> I think we should find a way to exclude redirs from depth stats.

Just define "non-articles" to mean pages outside the main namespace.
Lots of redirects, disambig pages and stubs does not indicate greater
collaboration, so I'm not sure why there were counted to start with.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: depth

Marcus Buck-2
In reply to this post by M. Williamson
Mark Williamson hett schreven:
> I think we should find a way to exclude redirs from depth stats.
Redirects _are_ a sign of depth. Well, _meaningful_ redirects of course.
But there's no automatic way to distinguish meaningful and less
meaningful redirects.

And that's the main problem of the whole "depth" metrics: It wants to be
a measure for collaborativeness. But its counting methods are so rough
and simplicistic, that inefficiency, messiness and mindlessness are
pushing the depth too. Creating a 100 KB article in one edit lowers the
depth, while creating a 1 KB article in 30 edits most likely will
increase the depth. Creating ten useless templates or creating ten
discussion pages with ditsy comments on the articles is good for the
depth while ten new elaborate articles is bad for the depth. An edit war
is very good for the depth while adding 100 KB text to the 100 KB
article of another user adds few to the depth.

Well, in the end it's not the fault of the metrics. It's the fault of
the people interpreting it as a measure of quality. It's not a measure
of quality.
The results can easily be skewed by individuals who have much power in a
single project (Volapük, Ripuarian for example), it's always skewed for
very small projects (Kanuri, Greenlandic), and it is often skewed due to
the specific methods of a wiki (English Wikipedia's wikiproject ratings
on almost every single discussion page for example put the depth higher).
Comparing depths for different projects is almost futile, if you don't
know about the specifics of the project that influence the depth.

Marcus Buck
User:Slomox

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: depth

M. Williamson
To me, this indicates a problem with the metrics used to calculate depth.

skype: node.ue



2009/3/23 Marcus Buck <[hidden email]>:

> Mark Williamson hett schreven:
>> I think we should find a way to exclude redirs from depth stats.
> Redirects _are_ a sign of depth. Well, _meaningful_ redirects of course.
> But there's no automatic way to distinguish meaningful and less
> meaningful redirects.
>
> And that's the main problem of the whole "depth" metrics: It wants to be
> a measure for collaborativeness. But its counting methods are so rough
> and simplicistic, that inefficiency, messiness and mindlessness are
> pushing the depth too. Creating a 100 KB article in one edit lowers the
> depth, while creating a 1 KB article in 30 edits most likely will
> increase the depth. Creating ten useless templates or creating ten
> discussion pages with ditsy comments on the articles is good for the
> depth while ten new elaborate articles is bad for the depth. An edit war
> is very good for the depth while adding 100 KB text to the 100 KB
> article of another user adds few to the depth.
>
> Well, in the end it's not the fault of the metrics. It's the fault of
> the people interpreting it as a measure of quality. It's not a measure
> of quality.
> The results can easily be skewed by individuals who have much power in a
> single project (Volapük, Ripuarian for example), it's always skewed for
> very small projects (Kanuri, Greenlandic), and it is often skewed due to
> the specific methods of a wiki (English Wikipedia's wikiproject ratings
> on almost every single discussion page for example put the depth higher).
> Comparing depths for different projects is almost futile, if you don't
> know about the specifics of the project that influence the depth.
>
> Marcus Buck
> User:Slomox
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: depth

Nathan Awrich
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> To me, this indicates a problem with the metrics used to calculate depth.
>
>
>

I'd say it indicates not that the depth calculations need to be tweaked, but
that they are intrinsically inaccurate and not meaningful and should be
disregarded altogether. They foster inter-project competition more than they
accomplish any other task; I personally don't think making projects
competitive (and encouraging work that does little besides increase the
depth mark) is the way to go.

Nathan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: depth

M. Williamson
There are many situations in which it could be useful to have a way to
quantify the quality, rather than just number of articles, of a
Wikipedia edition. If the whole formula is flawed, we should find a
better one.

Mark

2009/3/23 Nathan <[hidden email]>:

> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> To me, this indicates a problem with the metrics used to calculate depth.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I'd say it indicates not that the depth calculations need to be tweaked, but
> that they are intrinsically inaccurate and not meaningful and should be
> disregarded altogether. They foster inter-project competition more than they
> accomplish any other task; I personally don't think making projects
> competitive (and encouraging work that does little besides increase the
> depth mark) is the way to go.
>
> Nathan
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: depth

Thomas Dalton
2009/3/23 Mark Williamson <[hidden email]>:
> There are many situations in which it could be useful to have a way to
> quantify the quality, rather than just number of articles, of a
> Wikipedia edition. If the whole formula is flawed, we should find a
> better one.

Step one: Define "quality".

If you give me an unambiguous, uncontroversial definition of quality,
I'll find you a formula for it.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: depth

Nikola Smolenski
Дана Monday 23 March 2009 20:00:06 Thomas Dalton написа:

> 2009/3/23 Mark Williamson <[hidden email]>:
> > There are many situations in which it could be useful to have a way to
> > quantify the quality, rather than just number of articles, of a
> > Wikipedia edition. If the whole formula is flawed, we should find a
> > better one.
>
> Step one: Define "quality".
>
> If you give me an unambiguous, uncontroversial definition of quality,
> I'll find you a formula for it.

It doesn't have to be unambiguous or uncontroversial, it only has to be
useful.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: depth

Michael Peel-2
Perhaps a better thing to quantify is the usefulness, rather than the  
quality? That is, ask the people reading and using articles how  
useful the article has been to them?

Or, more generally, ask them to rate articles on a scale of 1 to N,  
where N is e.g. 5.

By doing that, you can learn about the distribution of ratings (==  
quality/usefulness/???) within a wikipedia, or within a subsample of  
the wikipedia (e.g. "featured" or "good" content). It provides a  
complementary statistic to article ratings, which are generally done  
by editors. It also highlights articles where we as editors think  
we've done a good job, but perhaps readers don't. Add in the  
evolution of the rating with time (possibly with a half-life for an  
individual rating) and you get to see the direction that the  
article's heading in. It's a simple, unobtrusive, commonly used tool  
that's much more likely to be used than any type of survey, yet is  
direct from the users rather than being an inferred quantity.

(This isn't my idea; if I remember correctly, it's  
[[en:User:Majorly]]'s. I hope he doesn't mind me passing it on. I've  
just added my slant, and hopefully inserted it at a useful point in  
this discussion.)

Mike

On 23 Mar 2009, at 20:26, Nikola Smolenski wrote:

> Дана Monday 23 March 2009 20:00:06 Thomas Dalton написа:
>> 2009/3/23 Mark Williamson <[hidden email]>:
>>> There are many situations in which it could be useful to have a  
>>> way to
>>> quantify the quality, rather than just number of articles, of a
>>> Wikipedia edition. If the whole formula is flawed, we should find a
>>> better one.
>>
>> Step one: Define "quality".
>>
>> If you give me an unambiguous, uncontroversial definition of quality,
>> I'll find you a formula for it.
>
> It doesn't have to be unambiguous or uncontroversial, it only has  
> to be
> useful.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: depth

Thomas Dalton
2009/3/23 Michael Peel <[hidden email]>:
> Perhaps a better thing to quantify is the usefulness, rather than the
> quality? That is, ask the people reading and using articles how
> useful the article has been to them?
>
> Or, more generally, ask them to rate articles on a scale of 1 to N,
> where N is e.g. 5.

There are several extensions available for this:

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:AjaxRatingScript
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:JSKitRating
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Rating
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Rating_Bar

If there is a consensus for it, it shouldn't be difficult to get it
turn on. I'm not sure you'll get such a consensus, though... (not
because it's a bad idea, but because we don't seem to be able to get a
consensus on anything these days)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l