Usuari:KRLS/TR/nl

De la Viquipèdia, l'enciclopèdia lliure

Answers by comunity order: Català - English - Castellano - Deutsch - Français - Polski - 日本語 - Nederlands - Italiano - Português - Svenska - Русский - 中文 - Norsk (Bokmål) - Suomi - Volapük - Română - Türkçe - Esperanto - Slovenčina

This is a survey for my Research Project with aim to know the indicators that measure the quality of an article according to the wikipedist community. If you want to answer this survey, just follow the link EDIT, copy and paste the pattern below, paste it in the end and answer the questions. I need tour help! I’m in a hurry so please; answer it as soon as you can.

Attention: Please, do not edit the pattern, just copy and paste in the bottom of the page and answer following the pertinent indications with (<-- -->).

If you have a problem with some questions you can say me your problems in my talk.

Template[modifica]

nl:User:[modifica]

  • Country:
  • Age:
  • Sex:
  1. You have to fill the following table just with a number from 0 to 10, according to how much you agree with the sentence. 0 means you totally disagree and 10 you totally agree.
Quality indicator Your qualification from 0 to 10
1. The number of articles.
2. The size of a wikipedia article.
3. The number of users.
4. Number of active users.
5. The speed of the vandalisms reversions.
6. Number of edits for article
7. The number of maintenance templates
8. Number of articles with a maintenance templates
9. Number of users that contribute with the wikipedia maintenance
10. References of external sources.
11. Projects to improve it's quality[1]
12. Community contributions to this projects[2]
13. Number of quality articles, good articles...
14. Number of visitors of a wikipedia.[3]
15. Structure of the categories.[4]
16. Redaction and clarity of the articles.
17. Existence of images at wikipedia articles.
18. Are most of your articles at an ordinary encyclopedia?[5]
19. Variety of terms (not included at ordinary encyclopedias).
20. External links to help visitors find more information.
  1. Are there other quality indicators? Which:


Answers[modifica]

nl:User:Aleichem[modifica]

  • Country:Netherlands
  • Age:52
  • Sex:Male
  1. You have to fill the following table just with a number from 0 to 10, according to how much you agree with the sentence. 0 means you totally disagree and 10 you totally agree.
Quality indicator Your qualification from 0 to 10
1. The number of articles. 4
2. The size of a wikipedia article. 3
3. The number of users. 4
4. Number of active users. 2
5. The speed of the vandalisms reversions. 7
6. Number of edits for article no opinion
7. The number of maintenance templates 1 - too many
8. Number of articles with a maintenance templates 8
9. Number of users that contribute with the wikipedia maintenance 2
10. References of external sources. 2
11. Projects to improve it's quality[6] 3
12. Community contributions to this projects[7] 2
13. Number of quality articles, good articles... 3
14. Number of visitors of a wikipedia.[8] 7
15. Structure of the categories.[9] 7
16. Redaction and clarity of the articles. 4
17. Existence of images at wikipedia articles. 8
18. Are most of your articles at an ordinary encyclopedia?[10] dunno
19. Variety of terms (not included at ordinary encyclopedias). 6
20. External links to help visitors find more information. 2
  1. Are there other quality indicators? Which:

nl:User:MADe[modifica]

  • Country:Belgium
  • Age:18-25
  • Sex:Male
  1. You have to fill the following table just with a number from 0 to 10, according to how much you agree with the sentence. 0 means you totally disagree and 10 you totally agree.
Quality indicator Your qualification from 0 to 10
1. The number of articles. 8
2. The size of a wikipedia article. 7
3. The number of users. 5
4. Number of active users. 5
5. The speed of the vandalisms reversions. 8
6. Number of edits for article 5
7. The number of maintenance templates 7
8. Number of articles with a maintenance templates 5
9. Number of users that contribute with the wikipedia maintenance 6
10. References of external sources. 5
11. Projects to improve it's quality[11] 3
12. Community contributions to this projects[12] 4
13. Number of quality articles, good articles... 7
14. Number of visitors of a wikipedia.[13] 5
15. Structure of the categories.[14] 5
16. Redaction and clarity of the articles. 6
17. Existence of images at wikipedia articles. 7
18. Are most of your articles at an ordinary encyclopedia?[15] 8
19. Variety of terms (not included at ordinary encyclopedias). 7
20. External links to help visitors find more information. 8
  1. Are there other quality indicators? Which:

Total absence of quality improving projects. Too less cooperation between different users.

nl:User:Rubietje88[modifica]

  • Country:The Netherlands
  • Age:16
  • Sex:Male
  1. You have to fill the following table just with a number from 0 to 10, according to how much you agree with the sentence. 0 means you totally disagree and 10 you totally agree.
Quality indicator Your qualification from 0 to 10
1. The number of articles. 6
2. The size of a wikipedia article. 8
3. The number of users. 3
4. Number of active users. 7
5. The speed of the vandalisms reversions. 4
6. Number of edits for article 6
7. The number of maintenance templates 4
8. Number of articles with a maintenance templates 4
9. Number of users that contribute with the wikipedia maintenance 7
10. References of external sources. 10
11. Projects to improve it's quality[16] 7
12. Community contributions to this projects[17] 6
13. Number of quality articles, good articles... 8
14. Number of visitors of a wikipedia.[18] 7
15. Structure of the categories.[19] 5
16. Redaction and clarity of the articles. 8
17. Existence of images at wikipedia articles. 8
18. Are most of your articles at an ordinary encyclopedia?[20] 6 (I think the most (all) articles at an ordinary encyclopedia must be on Wikipedia)
19. Variety of terms (not included at ordinary encyclopedias). 8
20. External links to help visitors find more information. 6
  1. Are there other quality indicators? Which:

nl:User:Joepnl[modifica]

  • Country:Netherlands
  • Age:35
  • Sex:Male
  1. You have to fill the following table just with a number from 0 to 10, according to how much you agree with the sentence. 0 means you totally disagree and 10 you totally agree.
Quality indicator Your qualification from 0 to 10
1. The number of articles. 4
2. The size of a wikipedia article. 7
3. The number of users. 2
4. Number of active users. 3
5. The speed of the vandalisms reversions. 8
6. Number of edits for article 8
7. The number of maintenance templates 2
8. Number of articles with a maintenance templates 8
9. Number of users that contribute with the wikipedia maintenance 5
10. References of external sources. 7
11. Projects to improve it's quality[21] 2
12. Community contributions to this projects[22] 2
13. Number of quality articles, good articles... 1 should all be
14. Number of visitors of a wikipedia.[23] 2
15. Structure of the categories.[24] 4
16. Redaction and clarity of the articles. 9
17. Existence of images at wikipedia articles. 8
18. Are most of your articles at an ordinary encyclopedia?[25] 4
19. Variety of terms (not included at ordinary encyclopedias). 8
20. External links to help visitors find more information. 8
  1. Are there other quality indicators? Which:
  • Percentage of articles with more than 2 or 3 different editors; i think these are more balanced.

nl:User:Lord P[modifica]

  • Country: Belgium
  • Age: 25
  • Sex: Male
  1. You have to fill the following table just with a number from 0 to 10, according to how much you agree with the sentence. 0 means you totally disagree and 10 you totally agree.
Quality indicator Your qualification from 0 to 10
1. The number of articles. 7
2. The size of a wikipedia article. 6.5
3. The number of users. 9
4. Number of active users. 7
5. The speed of the vandalisms reversions. 6.5
6. Number of edits for article 7
7. The number of maintenance templates 5.5 (far too many, in fact)
8. Number of articles with a maintenance template 6
9. Number of users that contribute with the wikipedia maintenance 6
10. References of external sources. 6.5
11. Projects to improve its quality[26] 6.5
12. Community contributions to this project[27] 7
13. Number of quality articles, good articles... 6
14. Number of visitors of a wikipedia.[28] 9
15. Structure of the categories.[29] 7.5 (might be broader, i.e. more comprehensive)
16. Redaction and clarity of the articles. 7
17. Existence of images at wikipedia articles. 6.5 (they exist, but need to be present)
18. Are most of your articles at an ordinary encyclopedia?[30] 6
19. Variety of terms (not included at ordinary encyclopedias). 9 (if you mean the variety of topics, that is)
20. External links to help visitors find more information. 8
  1. Are there other quality indicators? Which:
  • The language and style continue to be a nuisance; contributors' grammar is often sloppy, and too many articles are written in an informal, inconsequential style which is wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Style is half of the content!

nl:User:Hardscarf[modifica]

  • Country: Netherlands
  • Age: 28
  • Sex: male
  1. You have to fill the following table just with a number from 0 to 10, according to how much you agree with the sentence. 0 means you totally disagree and 10 you totally agree.
Quality indicator Your qualification from 0 to 10
1. The number of articles. 2, often articles with more than 10 language versions lack here
2. The size of a wikipedia article. 4, often lack an image when other language wiki's have multiple
3. The number of users. 5
4. Number of active users. 5, however not-active users can also have a lot of good contributions
5. The speed of the vandalisms reversions. 9
6. Number of edits for article 3, often no additions at all are being made for years
7. The number of maintenance templates 7, a problem is however that sometimes parts are in need of maintenance/not noteworthy/etc. and stay like that for long, especially with articles with fancruft
8. Number of articles with a maintenance templates 4, however maintenance templates should be temporarely and not stay for years on an article
9. Number of users that contribute with the wikipedia maintenance 6
10. References of external sources. 2, it is beginning to come, but most articles contain no sources at all
11. Projects to improve it's quality[31] 2
12. Community contributions to this projects[32] 5
13. Number of quality articles, good articles... 5, standards for what a quality article should be are often not taken fully in consideration with ratings
14. Number of visitors of a wikipedia.[33] 8, however bad publicity is not seldom a result because of meagre articles
15. Structure of the categories.[34] 6, often categories don't exist yet. Basic ones are usually present however
16. Redaction and clarity of the articles. 7
17. Existence of images at wikipedia articles. 6
18. Are most of your articles at an ordinary encyclopedia?[35] 4, lists for comparison have been made with the Dutch encarta/winker prins, but few seem to be aware of them.
19. Variety of terms (not included at ordinary encyclopedias). 7
20. External links to help visitors find more information. 5, a bias to external links in the community sometimes causes removal of good external links when there are more than (e.g.) four, even with very big articles
  1. Are there other quality indicators? Which:
  • quality of the community and moderators: e.g transparency should be present with moderating (to keep the trust of the community) and new users should be carefully treated. Problematic users (trolls, etc.) should not be given too much freedom for too long to fustrate processes to prevent users from walking away; the know how of users should not be wasted, when not neccesairy.

Comments[modifica]

  1. ↑ A sample could be: List of articles every Wikipedia should have
  2. ↑ Projects referred on point 11.
  3. ↑ This means that people believes in the wikipedia content.
  4. ↑ The order and the way to find articles at their category.
  5. ↑ Ordinary encyclopedias: Enncyclopedia Britannica.
  6. ↑ A sample could be: List of articles every Wikipedia should have
  7. ↑ Projects referred on point 11.
  8. ↑ This means that people believes in the wikipedia content.
  9. ↑ The order and the way to find articles at their category.
  10. ↑ Ordinary encyclopedias: Enncyclopedia Britannica.
  11. ↑ A sample could be: List of articles every Wikipedia should have
  12. ↑ Projects referred on point 11.
  13. ↑ This means that people believes in the wikipedia content.
  14. ↑ The order and the way to find articles at their category.
  15. ↑ Ordinary encyclopedias: Enncyclopedia Britannica.
  16. ↑ A sample could be: List of articles every Wikipedia should have
  17. ↑ Projects referred on point 11.
  18. ↑ This means that people believes in the wikipedia content.
  19. ↑ The order and the way to find articles at their category.
  20. ↑ Ordinary encyclopedias: Enncyclopedia Britannica.
  21. ↑ A sample could be: List of articles every Wikipedia should have
  22. ↑ Projects referred on point 11.
  23. ↑ This means that people believes in the wikipedia content.
  24. ↑ The order and the way to find articles at their category.
  25. ↑ Ordinary encyclopedias: Enncyclopedia Britannica.
  26. ↑ A sample could be: List of articles every Wikipedia should have
  27. ↑ Projects referred on point 11.
  28. ↑ This means that people believe in the wikipedia content.
  29. ↑ The order and the way to find articles at their category.
  30. ↑ Ordinary encyclopedias: Enncyclopedia Britannica.
  31. ↑ A sample could be: List of articles every Wikipedia should have
  32. ↑ Projects referred on point 11.
  33. ↑ This means that people believes in the wikipedia content.
  34. ↑ The order and the way to find articles at their category.
  35. ↑ Ordinary encyclopedias: Enncyclopedia Britannica.
Obtingut de «https://ca.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usuari:KRLS/TR/nl&oldid=1767315»