[Wikimedia Education] accuracy review human trial (was Re: [EE] Wikimedia Idealab Grant Call for Participants)

Sage, the Wikiwho programmers in Germany volunteered to help with the Accuracy Review bot, and fundraising is proceeding well, so this can happen sooner. I have been trying to ask Frank Schulenberg to join me in supporting measuring both student edits and a wider random sample of edits, as I believe a decent experimental design allowing for a long-term cost-benefit analysis would require anyway, and I'm interested in measuring human paid accuracy review on other subsets of articles, such as those with known conflicted interest advocacy, controversy, and high readership. From my perspective, that a student made an edit is just one of those factors which could put a revision towards the front of a review queue. So, where is a list of recent student editors? Another topic from last month is whether participating in an accuracy review task which would ordinarily be paid (for humans) is somewhat indistinguishable from a very general form of computer aided instruction. I hope this has utopian implications that tuition and labor will somehow cancel out, but while very optimistic, I am not yet anywhere nearly that optimistic. This does seem similar to the parsimonious situation in my professional field where a reading tutor can be indistinguishable from a pronunciation tutor in certain circumstances; it doesn't alleviate the need for writing instruction. In any case, that question suggests collecting measurements about whether unpaid volunteers are willing to participate in accuracy review tasks. So, nobody will be turned away just because they want to work for free. In fact, we may try to attract conflict of interest advocacy editors into the volunteer pool in order to see if we can automatically discover them via second order review. Please let me know your thoughts. On Monday, April 20, 2015, Sage Ross <ragesoss+wikipedia(a)gmail.com> wrote: