This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
the m:Objective_Revision_Evaluation_Service indicates that the infobox adds to the quality of this article. if you have questions about the algorithm, ask there.
The objective facts are that you have been asked multiple times to provide understandable explanations, in English, for why you think an infobox will be an improvement, and all you ever do in response is to post meaningless and unintelligible strings of numbers. It's not a helpful contribution to the discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, to follow-up, I tried an experiment with ORES. This version of the article, that I created for the experiment, has the same effect as adding the infobox, to my mind: by purely duplicating what's already in the article, it adds no useful information, makes it harder to find the existing information, and has the effect of making the article appear longer and (to unintelligent software that can't tell the difference) better written. And, surprise surprise, ORES likes it better. ORES correctly judges all of these versions as on the low side of start class, giving the non-infobox version 0.24 chance of being start / 0.72 chance of being stub, while it gives the infobox verson 0.4 chance of being start and 0.54 chance of being stub. But it also gives my experimental duplicated-content version even better ratings, 0.49 chance of being start and 0.31 chance of being stub. I conclude that ORES is reasonably accurate at judging the quality of good-faith human-generated content (such as the original version of this article), but really bad at distinguishing useful new content from useless robotic duplicate content. Therefore, it is not an appropriate tool to be using in this context, where the debate is specifically whether the new content is useful and informative, not just whether it adds length to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
that's very nice. perhaps you would care to share your insights with the ORES team. your conclusion does not follow from your premises. you use aesthetic judgement to agree with it in one case, but not another. do you have any objective evidence that an infobox is not an improvement? are you going to stand upon your subjective judgement to prevent linked open data improvement for biographies? why are you having a policy discussion on a random article page? Beatley (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If your vaunted "objectivity" doesn't immediately tell you that my experimental version is much worse than the original, then something is wrong with you. And yet ORES ranks it as significantly better. What does that tell you about the value of an ORES score? And I'm not trying to change policy; I'm only trying to explain why I think your arguments here are worthless. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Beatley: per WP:INFOBOXUSE the decision on whether to include an infobox is made through consensus on this talkpage. You're certainly welcome to argue that there should be one, but an ORES score doesn't automatically trump the en-WP consensus requirement. At present the consensus on this page opposes an infobox. Unless/until that changes, please don't restore it to the article. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
gosh, wouldn;t be a nice thing, if an independent third party developed some objective metrics, as messy as they might be, to measure article quality? wouldn't it be something if it was the slightest consideration in discussions. what would we ever talk about? this person says two people are not a consensus. how many are? because i can get as many as you want. consensus is not shifting the burden on the other party, it requires shared values. Consensus_decision-making#Blocking is not required in the process, you may also stand aside. Beatley (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
