Wiki ranking: Bayesian statistics can score Wikipedia entries

August 6, 2014

Wikipedia the free, online collaborative encyclopedia is an important source of information. However, while the team of volunteer editors endeavors to maintain high standards, there are occasionally problems with the veracity of content, deliberate vandalism and incomplete entries. Writing in the International Journal of Information Quality, computer scientists in China have devised a software algorithm that can automatically check a particular entry and rank it according to quality.

Jingyu Han and Kejia Chen of Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications, explain that the quality of data on Wikipedia has for many years been the focus of user attention. Its detractors suggest that it can never be a valid information source in the way that a proprietary encyclopedia might be because the contributors and editors are not under the direct control of a single publisher with a vested interest in . Its supporters suggest that the social nature of contributions and edits and the online tracking of changes is one of Wikipedia's greatest strengths rather than a weakness.

Nevertheless, it would quiet the detractors if there were a way to quantify the quality of Wikipedia entries in an objective and automated manner. Now, Han and Chen have turned to Bayesian statistics to help them create just such a system. The notion of finding evidence based on an analysis of probabilities was first described by 18th Century mathematician and theologian Thomas Bayes. Bayesian probabilities were then utilized by Pierre-Simon Laplace to pioneer a new statistical method. Today, Bayesian analysis is commonly used to assess the content of emails and to determine the probability that the content is spam, junk mail, and so filter it from the user's inbox if the probability is high.

Han and Chen have now used dynamic Bayesian network (DBN) to analyze in a similar manner the content of Wikipedia entries. They apply multivariate Gaussian distribution modeling to the DBN analysis, which gives them a distribution of the quality of each article so that entries might be ranked. Very low-ranking entries might be flagged for editorial attention to raise the quality. By contrast, high-ranking entries could be marked in some way as the definitive entry so that such an entry is not subsequently overwritten with lower quality information.

The team has tested its algorithm on sets of several hundred articles comparing the automated quality assessment by the computer with assessment by a human user. Their algorithm out-performs a human user by up to 23 percent in correctly classifying the quality rank of a given article in the set, the team reports. The use of a computerized system to provide a quality standard for Wikipedia entries would avoid the subjective need to have people classify each entry. It could thus improve the standard as well as provide a basis for an improved reputation for the online encyclopedia.

Explore further: Wikipedia says it is losing contributors

More information: Han, J. and Chen, K. (2014) 'Ranking Wikipedia article's data quality by learning dimension distributions', Int. J. Information Quality, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp.207.

Related Stories

Wikipedia losing editors, study says

January 4, 2013

Wikipedia, one of the world's biggest websites, is losing many of its English-language editors, crippling its ability to keep pace with its mission as a source of knowledge online, a study says.

Recommended for you

Toyota promises better mileage and ride with Prius hybrid

October 13, 2015

Toyota Motor Corp. released details for its fourth-generation Prius on Tuesday, promising that improvements in the battery, engine, wind resistance and weight mean better mileage for the world's top-selling hybrid car.

Facebook to test mobile app shopping tab

October 12, 2015

Facebook said Monday that it will begin testing a shopping tab for its mobile app as it works to ramp up advertising and online commerce offerings.


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

3 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2014
Can be very misleading in some cases, giving high quality for completely wrong thinking of a very large number of people !!
I have written in wikipedia and I can show scientific errors remaining over many years, after my text was censured and modified steadily by lobby writers, so that I stopped the war against them to suppress the error !!!
Any thing true, but disturbing for lobbys is censured in wikipedia !!

3 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2014
read how wikipedia can be misleading :
3 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2014
not rated yet Aug 07, 2014
One problem (depending on your perspective) with reducing the scoring process to an algorithm is you now give people who would "optimize" the ranking of their work a simple way to do so. We would see a bias towards towards those who strongly wish us to think what they want us to, and have no ethics about gaming the system. Sometimes that might coincide with truth and accuracy.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.