[Foundation-l] [EWW] Edit Wikipedia Week

Wed Nov 21 15:52:07 UTC 2007

Chad

This isn't actually true - we have gone "live" with experts in
collaboration with Steel359 at the very least, and several articles
(well, at least informal logic
http://en.veropedia.com/a/Informal%20logic ) have been subject to
review by expert(s).  Although I see nothing about that's displaying
yet.

Cheers
WilyD

On 11/21/07, Chad <innocentkiller at gmail.com> wrote:
> Debbie,
>
> Editor credentials *will* play a role in time to come, we haven't hit that
> point yet. Now that we have articles, our next focus is getting academic
> professionals (with verified credentials in their respective fields) to read
> the articles and either approve them or perhaps suggest improvements. We
> just haven't gotten there yet.
>
> Chad H.
>
> On Nov 21, 2007 8:17 AM, Debbie Garside <debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >  Hi Chad
> >
> > Thanks for the response but really I was looking for a more thorough
> > methodology.  To say someone looks over it "to the best of their ability" is
> > not going to stand up in terms of assessment and benchmarking with regard to
> > authorities data or use of externally controlled authoritative data sources
> > as verification.
> >
> > What you need is a process model with usability attributes that have
> > designated measurable, unmeasurable or computable outcomes. Editor
> > credentials (IMHO) should be included within this process if you really want
> > something to be authoritative.
> >
> > I can see that you have some computable outcomes which is a good start.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Debbie
> >
> >  ------------------------------
> > *From:* Chad [mailto:innocentkiller at gmail.com]
> > *Sent:* 21 November 2007 13:00
> > *To:* debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> >
> > *Subject:* Re: [Foundation-l] [EWW] Edit Wikipedia Week
> >
> > As a developer for Veropedia, I can personally tell you the checks we
> > perform on articles.
> >
> > 1 - No fairuse images. If an image is not freely licensed (GFDL, PD, CC,
> > or anything else applicable), we will not use it.
> > 2 - No bad URLs. All external links must point to valid sites. 404s, 403s,
> > 500s, all of these things are fixed or removed (whatever the case may be)
> > 3 - Cleanup Categories/Templates - Any of the numerous cleanup categories
> > (external links, peacock terms, et cetera ad nauseum) as well as the
> > [citation needed] notices.
> > 4 - Disambiguations - All link need to point to a valid wiki article if
> > possible, disambiguations should be avoided.
> > 5 - A variety of punctuation blacklists (refs on the wrong side of
> > periods, quotation marks inside other punctuation, et cetera)
> > 6 - We also check for slang, spelling and grammar problems outside of
> > direct quotes (our parser will actually notify the uploader on the more
> > common mistakes)
> > 7 - Using too many of the same word will raise flags as well
> > 8 - Overly long or overly short sentences get flagged.
> >
> > Also, we give our uploaders the Fog, Flesch and Flesch-Kincaid readability
> > indexes to help them in their editing.
> >
> > Finally, there is the human element. Every article is (at least should,
> > and if they aren't, that person needs speaking to) read over by a real
> > person who judges (to the best of their ability) if an article is well
> > written, well sourced and well formatted. If they say yes, then they import
> > that revision to Veropedia where it remains frozen from editing (of course,
> > new versions can be imported over old ones, and we retain *our* upload
> > history as well as a link to Enwikis, a problem we are working on a feasible
> > way to fix right now). Hope this clears up some of the curiosity surrounding
> > how we decide articles are worthy of inclusion.
> >
> > -Chad H.
> >
> > On Nov 21, 2007 7:45 AM, Debbie Garside <debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Are there any documented general concepts, principles and requirements
> > > for
> > > assessment and benchmarking articles within Wikipedia or veropedia?  Has
> > > a
> > > usability/reliability/readability model been developed?  If so, can
> > > someone
> > > point me to a link?
> > >
> > > As a standardizer, I would be interested to see the model for the
> > > "veropedia
> > > test".
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > >
> > > Debbie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > [mailto: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf
> > > > Of Dan Rosenthal
> > > > Sent: 20 November 2007 23:48
> > > > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> > > > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [EWW] Edit Wikipedia Week
> > > >
> > >  > Brian: before you continue talking, and noting that I still
> > > > don't see you in #veropedia
> > > >
> > > > Veropedia gets it's articles by parsing a Wikipedia article,
> > > > generating a list of improvements (404s, disambigs, malformed
> > > > templates, bad templates, readability indices etc.) and then
> > > > the veropedian IMPROVES THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE until it passes
> > > > the veropedia test, at which point it is uploaded.
> > > >
> > > > There is no folding stuff back into WP. Waking up on the
> > > > wrong side of the bed is no excuse for making a contentious
> > > > statement on a topic you apparently know nothing about.
> > > > Sorry, I tried to be nice about it in the last email, but
> > > > your response is plain childish.
> > > >
> > > > -Dan
> > > > On Nov 20, 2007, at 6:33 PM, Brian McNeil wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > David Gerard wrote:
> > > > >> On 20/11/2007, Waerth < waerth at asianet.co.th> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>> Because we vannot do it all! Sometimes you need to branch off
> > > > >>> specialistic projects to small groups of people. The Wikimedia
> > > > >>> projects have grown so big that the head and the body
> > > > usually walk
> > > > >>> in different directions and do different things. It is very
> > > > >>> difficult to steer so many people. Like an earlier poster
> > > > mentioned
> > > > >>> .... consensus amongst such a huge body is impossible. That is
> > > > >>> easier reached amongst a smaller group of people. I hope more
> > > > >>> initiatives like veropedia will arise!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> Open content: "Use our stuff. Please! (And give back your version
> > > > >> too.)"
> > > > >
> > > > > As the most succinct response on this I'll respond on this one.
> > > > >
> > > > > I get the message, the foundation can't do everything and
> > > > the license
> > > > > allows
> > > > > - nay - encourages projects like this. Good luck working out the
> > > > > mechanics of the process of folding stuff back in to WP.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, and judging from some of the other posts today I'm not the only
> > > > > one that didn't actually fall out of the wrong side of bed but was
> > > > > forcibly evicted before adequate sleep time had been acquired.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Brian McNeil
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>