English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In this paper we address the challenge of assessing the quality of Wikipediapages using scores derived from edit contribution and contributorauthoritativeness measures. The hypothesis is that pages with significantcontributions from authoritative contributors are likely to be high-qualitypages. Contributions are quantified using edit longevity measures andcontributor authoritativeness is scored using centrality metrics in either theWikipedia talk or co-author networks. The results suggest that it is useful totake into account the contributor authoritativeness when assessing theinformation quality of Wikipedia content. The percentile visualization of thequality scores provides some insights about the anomalous articles, and can beused to help Wikipedia editors to identify Start and Stub articles that are ofrelatively good quality.

Assessing the Quality of Wikipedia Pages Using Edit Longevity and Contributor Centrality