How exactly are they evaluating the "quality" of an article? Looking at the paper they are presuming that a featured article is a good article, while a stub is a bad article. Is this necessarily the case? Isn't it possible (or likely even) that a featured article is more wrong?
"Our analysis then reveals that polarized teams—those consisting of a balanced set of politically diverse editors—create articles of higher quality than politically homogeneous teams. The effect appears most strongly in Wikipedia’s Political articles..."https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/943507941629476869 …
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
And we all know how politically diverse the MSM is...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.