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
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l