Difference between revisions of "Assessing the Quality of Wikipedia Pages Using Edit Longevity and Contributor Centrality"
(+ wikilinks) |
(Infobox) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{Infobox work | ||
| + | | title = Assessing the Quality of Wikipedia Pages Using Edit Longevity and Contributor Centrality | ||
| + | | date = 2012 | ||
| + | | authors = [[Xiangju Qin]]<br />[[Pádraig Cunningham]] | ||
| + | | link = http://dl.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=1242608&type=pdf | ||
| + | | plink = http://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.2517.pdf | ||
| + | }} | ||
'''Assessing the Quality of Wikipedia Pages Using Edit Longevity and Contributor Centrality''' - scientific work related to [[Wikipedia quality]] published in 2012, written by [[Xiangju Qin]] and [[Pádraig Cunningham]]. | '''Assessing the Quality of Wikipedia Pages Using Edit Longevity and Contributor Centrality''' - scientific work related to [[Wikipedia quality]] published in 2012, written by [[Xiangju Qin]] and [[Pádraig Cunningham]]. | ||
== Overview == | == Overview == | ||
In this paper authors address the challenge of assessing the quality of [[Wikipedia]] pages using scores derived from edit contribution and con- tributor authoritativeness [[measures]]. The hypothesis is that pages with significant contributions from authoritative contributors are likely to be high-quality pages. Contributions are quantified using edit longevity measures and contributor authoritativeness is scored using centrality metrics in either the Wikipedia talk or co-author networks. The results suggest that it is useful to take into account the contributor authori- tativeness when assessing the [[information quality]] of Wikipedia content. The percentile visualization of the quality scores provides some insights about the anomalous articles, and can be used to help [[Wikipedia editors]] to identify Start and Stub articles that are of relatively good quality. | In this paper authors address the challenge of assessing the quality of [[Wikipedia]] pages using scores derived from edit contribution and con- tributor authoritativeness [[measures]]. The hypothesis is that pages with significant contributions from authoritative contributors are likely to be high-quality pages. Contributions are quantified using edit longevity measures and contributor authoritativeness is scored using centrality metrics in either the Wikipedia talk or co-author networks. The results suggest that it is useful to take into account the contributor authori- tativeness when assessing the [[information quality]] of Wikipedia content. The percentile visualization of the quality scores provides some insights about the anomalous articles, and can be used to help [[Wikipedia editors]] to identify Start and Stub articles that are of relatively good quality. | ||
Revision as of 06:22, 27 May 2020
Authors | Xiangju Qin Pádraig Cunningham |
|---|---|
Publication date | 2012 |
Links | Original Preprint |
Assessing the Quality of Wikipedia Pages Using Edit Longevity and Contributor Centrality - scientific work related to Wikipedia quality published in 2012, written by Xiangju Qin and Pádraig Cunningham.
Overview
In this paper authors address the challenge of assessing the quality of Wikipedia pages using scores derived from edit contribution and con- tributor authoritativeness measures. The hypothesis is that pages with significant contributions from authoritative contributors are likely to be high-quality pages. Contributions are quantified using edit longevity measures and contributor authoritativeness is scored using centrality metrics in either the Wikipedia talk or co-author networks. The results suggest that it is useful to take into account the contributor authori- tativeness when assessing the information quality of Wikipedia content. The percentile visualization of the quality scores provides some insights about the anomalous articles, and can be used to help Wikipedia editors to identify Start and Stub articles that are of relatively good quality.
