Mutual evaluation of editors and texts for assessing quality of Wikipedia articles

Abstract

In this paper, we propose a method to identify good quality Wikipedia articles by mutually evaluating editors and texts. A major approach for assessing article quality is a text survival ratio based approach. In this approach, when a text survives beyond multiple edits, the text is assessed as good quality. This approach assumes that poor quality texts are deleted by editors with high possibility. However, many vandals delete good quality texts frequently, then the survival ratios of good quality texts are improperly decreased by vandals. As a result, many good quality texts are unfairly assessed as poor quality. In our method, we consider editor quality for calculating text quality, and decrease the impacts on text qualities by the vandals who has low quality. Using this improvement, the accuracy of the text quality should be improved. However, an inherent problem of this idea is that the editor qualities are calculated by the text qualities. To solve this problem, we mutually calculate the editor and text qualities until they converge. We did our experimental evaluation, and we confirmed that the proposed method could accurately assess the text qualities.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 20 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.