1 / 4

QuWiA Framework for Wikipedia Quality Control

Explore the QuWiA framework for quality control in Wikipedia, based on Mizzaro's model for scholarly papers. Learn how implicit judgments, edits, proximity, and reversion play vital roles in assessing article quality. Find out how this framework aligns with human judgment and enhances the reliability of Wikipedia.

nico
Download Presentation

QuWiA Framework for Wikipedia Quality Control

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. QuWiA Framework for Quality Control in Wikipedia Karen UttechtInternet & Web Systems II, 91.514

  2. Background / Related Work • 2005 Study published in Nature showed Wikipedia to have similar quality to the Encyclopedia Britannica for the scientific terms evaluated • Mizzaro’s Model for scholarly papers • Three Scores: Paper, Author and Reader • Paper – scored based on feedback from the reader • Author – scored based on the score of the papers they have authored • Reader – scores based on how high quality their judgments about papers are (how far from average) • Steadiness value measures how much scores change over time

  3. QuWi – Applying Mizzaro’s Modelto the Wikipedia • Implicit Judgments instead of explicit judgments • Edits = Negative Judgment on Author, Document • Large, sweeping edits are a strongly negative judgment against the whole document • Small edits are a negative judgment against the edited portion of the document, but positive for the rest of the document that was left alone. • Proximity is taken into account, pieces far away from the edited portion do not get as much of a positive judgment as those closer. • Reversion = Positive for original piece, negative for editor

  4. Does it work? • Tested their system against the history (6 major checkpoints) of the Italian Wikipedia • Found the system was consistent with human judgment • In this case the ‘featured articles’ were consistent with highly rated articles • Articles proposed for deletion were low rated articles • Outliers tended to be controversial topics, like ‘Suicide’ and ‘Abortion’

More Related