Automatic quality evaluation of Web information is a task with many fields of applications and of great relevance, especially in critical domains like the medical one. We move from the intuition that the quality of content of medical Web documents is affected by features related with the specific domain. First, the usage of a specific vocabulary (Domain Informativeness); then, the adoption of specific codes (like those used in the infoboxes of Wikipedia articles) and the type of document (e.g., historical and technical ones). In this paper, we propose to leverage specific domain features to improve the results of the evaluation of Wikipedia medical articles. In particular, we evaluate the articles adopting an "actionable" model, whose features are related to the content of the articles, so that the model can also directly suggest strategies for improving a given article quality. We rely on Natural Language Processing (NLP) and dictionaries-based techniques in order to extract the bio-medical concepts in a text. We prove the effectiveness of our approach by classifying the medical articles of the Wikipedia Medicine Portal, which have been previously manually labeled by the Wiki Project team. The results of our experiments confirm that, by considering domain-oriented features, it is possible to obtain sensible improvements with respect to existing solutions, mainly for those articles that other approaches have less correctly classified. Other than being interesting by their own, the results call for further research in the area of domain specific features suitable for Web data quality assessment.
Automatic quality evaluation of Wikipedia articles has been addressed in previous works with both unsupervised and supervised learning approaches. The common idea of most of the existing work is to identify a feature set, having as a starting point the Wikipedia project guidelines, to be exploited with the objective in mind to distinguish Featured Articles. @cite_13 , Stvilia identify a relevant set of features, including lingual, structural, historical and reputational aspects of each article. They show the effectiveness of their metrics by applying both clustering and classification. As a result, more than 90 identified.
@cite_13
2252123752 2798279345 2001534825 2065167558
In this paper, we analyze a novel set of features for the task of automatic edit category classification. Edit category classification assigns categories such as spelling error correction, paraphrase or vandalism to edits in a document. Our features are based on differences between two versions of a document including meta data, textual and language properties and markup. In a supervised machine learning experiment, we achieve a micro-averaged F1 score of .62 on a corpus of edits from the English Wikipedia. In this corpus, each edit has been multi-labeled according to a 21-category taxonomy. A model trained on the same data achieves state-of-the-art performance on the related task of fluency edit classification. We apply pattern mining to automatically labeled edits in the revision histories of different Wikipedia articles. Our results suggest that high-quality articles show a higher degree of homogeneity with respect to their collaboration patterns as compared to random articles. Quality in Wikipedia is enforced through a set of editing policies and guidelines recommended for Wikipedia editors. Neutral point of view (NPOV) is one of the main principles in Wikipedia, which ensures that for controversial information all possible points of view are represented proportionally. Furthermore, language used in Wikipedia should be neutral and not opinionated. However, due to the large number of Wikipedia articles and its operating principle based on a voluntary basis of Wikipedia editors; quality assurances and Wikipedia guidelines cannot always be enforced. Currently, there are more than 40,000 articles, which are flagged with NPOV or similar quality tags. Furthermore, these represent only the portion of articles for which such quality issues are explicitly flagged by the Wikipedia editors, however, the real number may be higher considering that only a small percentage of articles are of good quality or featured as categorized by Wikipedia. In this work, we focus on the case of language bias at the sentence level in Wikipedia. Language bias is a hard problem, as it represents a subjective task and usually the linguistic cues are subtle and can be determined only through its context. We propose a supervised classification approach, which relies on an automatically created lexicon of bias words, and other syntactical and semantic characteristics of biased statements. We experimentally evaluate our approach on a dataset consisting of biased and unbiased statements, and show that we are able to detect biased statements with an accuracy of 74 . Furthermore, we show that competitors that determine bias words are not suitable for detecting biased statements, which we outperform with a relative improvement of over 20 . The online encyclopedia Wikipedia is a highly successful “open content” project, written and maintained completely by volunteers. Little is known, however, about the motivation of these volunteers. Results from an online survey among 106 contributors to the German Wikipedia project are presented. Both motives derived from social sciences (perceived benefits, identification with Wikipedia, etc.) as well as perceived task characteristics (autonomy, skill variety, etc.) were assessed as potential predictors of contributors' satisfaction and self-reported engagement. Satisfaction ratings were particularly determined by perceived benefits, identification with the Wikipedia community, and task characteristics. Engagement was particularly determined by high tolerance for opportunity costs and by task characteristics, the latter effect being partially mediated by intrinsic motivation. Relevant task characteristics for contributors' engagement and satisfaction were perceived autonomy, task significance, skill vari... In this paper we address the problem of developing actionable quality models for Wikipedia, models whose features directly suggest strategies for improving the quality of a given article. We first survey the literature in order to understand the notion of article quality in the context of Wikipedia and existing approaches to automatically assess article quality. We then develop classification models with varying combinations of more or less actionable features, and find that a model that only contains clearly actionable features delivers solid performance. Lastly we discuss the implications of these results in terms of how they can help improve the quality of articles across Wikipedia.