{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02973977695167286, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002973977695167286, 'mean_word_length': 5.565853658536585, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A general multiview framework for assessing the quality of collaboratively created content on web 2.0

User‐generated content is one of the most interesting phenomena of current published media, as users are now able not only to consume, but also to produce content in a much faster and easier manner. However, such freedom also carries concerns about content quality. In this work, we propose an automatic framework to assess the quality of collaboratively generated content. Quality is addressed as a multidimensional concept, modeled as a combination of independent assessments, each regarding different quality dimensions. Accordingly, we adopt a machine‐learning (ML)‐based multiview approach to assess content quality. We perform a thorough analysis of our framework on two different domains: Questions and Answer Forums and Collaborative Encyclopedias. This allowed us to better understand when and how the proposed multiview approach is able to provide accurate quality assessments. Our main contributions are: (a) a general ML multiview framework that takes advantage of different views of quality indicators; (b) the improvement (up to 30%) in quality assessment over the best state‐of‐the‐art baseline methods; (c) a thorough feature and view analysis regarding impact, informativeness, and correlation, based on two distinct domains.