Pine and All,
I have made an offer to sponsor the accuracy review bot development out of my own pocket, but if the developers' needs are more than I can afford, the question becomes, is it more appropriate to ask the WMF or WEF to supply the difference before going ahead with additional fundraising? Since the WEF is likely to encounter the greater expense for fact-checkers whether they decide to check only their students' work or both those edits and the bot-identified queue, I have been told that would be more appreciate for the WMF. I am not eliminating the possibility that fact-checking work on the bot queue may not be sponsored by either Foundation until it is fully debugged, proven, and optimized, in which case I will probably pursue both independent fundraising and advocacy of a third spin-off foundation to carefully comply with the safe harbor provisions for general fact-checking simultaneously.
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi James,
I think that I understand your proposal better now. Thanks.
Rather than involving Lila at this stage, I would like to suggest that you talk directly to the Wiki Ed Foundation if you haven't already. Please do let me know how they respond. Good-faith paid editing is a subject that seems to be bubbling up in a number of places recently.
Thanks, Pine
On Jun 5, 2015 2:35 AM, "James Salsman" jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Pine, sure, the WikiEd Foundation is able to pay for fact checking without risking the Wikimedia Foundation's safe harbor. The funding model was originally going to be to crowdsourced, but now that I have relatively more money than time, I am probably going to pay for the bot development work out of pocket myself, but still plan to set up something along the lines of http://imgur.com/a/Pp2zr to pay for the fact checkers. The WikiEd Foundation has an interest in making sure that their students' work is not degrading the accuracy of the encyclopedia, and this provides them an easy way to do so.
As for your final question, why should Lila not be involved in this discussion? Weren't you just a few days ago saying that the annual plan comment period should be longer and more inclusive? But I guess the best answer is that, if the WikiEd Foundation isn't interested in general accuracy review for work other than by their students, then a second spin-off foundation is probably going to be necessary.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi James,
I understand that WMF can't do much content work without risking its DCMA safe harbor, and I understand that fact checking even if paid might be a net benefit to the project. But I'm not sure how that relates to the Education mailing list, what funding model you are proposing for this work, why the Wiki Ed Foundation would want to include this kind of fact checking within its scope of work even if the funding was readily available, and why Lila would be involved in this discussion. Can you clarify those points?
Thanks,
Pine
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:42 AM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
P.S. Report is at http://people.aifb.kit.edu/ffl//wikiwho/fp715-floeck.pdf and further docs at http://f-squared.org/wikiwho/
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 10:25 AM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Aaron and Pine,
Please see
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2015-May/031684.html
I was thrilled to see Maribel Acosta's WikiWho check-in for Mediawiki-Utilities today, and I hope you are, too: https://github.com/maribelacosta/wikiwho/pull/3
I intend to raise money independently so that someone such as Maribel or perhaps one of her colleagues recommended by Fabian Flöck can work on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Accuracy_review
Once that is complete, the project calls for human fact checkers to work on the suggested passages for proofreading and fact checking review. I intend to raise money for them, too, but I understand that the WMF can't have any part of hiring them to preserve the safe harbor DMCA provisions. Earlier in the year, I administered qualifying examinations to hundreds of fact checker candidates, and have transferred the results of those examinations to Lila and Dario, in case I get run over by a bus, and also so that they can independently confirm the quality of the examination process, questions, and responses which they should have.
Aaron, can you please confirm that Lila and Dario have those and don't need anything more from me to read them? I would love to do this myself, but I will be very busy through the end of the year.
Best regards, James
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 6:09 AM, Aaron Halfaker aaron.halfaker@gmail.com wrote:
Hi James,
I've been away traveling for the last couple of weeks. Regretfully, I don't know what you are talking about. I see that a link was censored from a previous email in the thread.
What exactly are you hoping for? That we'll dedicate some researcher time to a specific project? Maybe you're just looking for feedback. I see you mention hiring people -- but for what purpose?
-Aaron
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 9:11 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote: > > P.S. I mean, the WMF can't hire them but the WEF can, and I hope > they > do > soon to complement the accuracy metric without expenditure. > > > On Wednesday, June 3, 2015, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> Hi Aaron, >> >> Could you please confirm that Lila and Dario are in receipt of the >> fact-checker candidate list and associated materials? Please >> remember >> that >> the WEF can't hire them but the WikiEd Foundation has not yet >> achieved >> IdeaLab technology, so your assistance may still be required. >> Thank >> you for >> your patience. >> >> Best regards, >> James Salsman >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com >> Date: Sunday, May 31, 2015 >> Subject: comments on Annual Plan >> To: Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org >> Cc: Dario Taraborelli dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org >> >> >> Dear Dario and Lila, >> >> Are you both able to see the human fact checker and proofreader >> candidates in >> [censored] ? >> >> Please keep the contents of that file confidential, as I promised >> I >> would >> not share it with commercial interests. >> >> Please let me know your thoughts on the next best steps. >> >> Best regards, >> James >> >> >> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:05 PM, James Salsman >> jsalsman@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> Lila, >>> >>> Thank you so much. I will help Dario as much as I can. You are >>> both >>> so >>> great. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Jim >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, May 28, 2015, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi James, >>>> >>>> Not sure we can "take this away" better than another volunteer, >>>> but >>>> we >>>> do plan to focus on quality measurements. I am CCing Dario who >>>> is >>>> in charge >>>> of Analytics Research to look into the specifics of what's >>>> involved >>>> here and >>>> how it may link to the general quality metrics. >>>> >>>> Lila >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 7:54 AM, James Salsman >>>> jsalsman@gmail.com >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Lila, >>>>> >>>>> Please take this away from me. I do not want to be in a >>>>> position >>>>> where >>>>> my influence over it can unduly enrich my new client by >>>>> degrading >>>>> the >>>>> quality of the encyclopedia. Please let me know your decision. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>> From: James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com >>>>> Date: Thu, May 28, 2015 at 8:52 AM >>>>> Subject: comments on Annual Plan >>>>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regarding >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16#Eng... >>>>> >>>>> Will key quality metrics for reading include accuracy of >>>>> articles >>>>> on >>>>> the Simple English Wikipedia? >>>>> >>>>> To that end, will the Wikimedia Foundation please take over >>>>> this >>>>> project in full as stated here: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2015-May/031684.html >>>>> >>>>> I have a new contract through the end of the year and will be >>>>> unable >>>>> to devote the time I had planned. Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> James Salsman >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >>
Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education