Hi again,
But I'm interested to know if the good people of this list are aware of specific tasks/duties on en:wp that are woefully understaffed at the moment. Things that really need doing.
Y-E-S spells YES and you are now it. Articles with Unsourced Claims
I did what I thought was the best kind of search on en:wp relating to your reply, and it returns a lot of salient, but not specific project, pages.
I found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNSOURCED#Burden_of_evidence
Earlier on today I found the 'RFC' pages.
I'm interested in dispute resolution. I quite like the idea of getting involved in arguments as someone who, basically, doesn't know their arse from their elbow as regards the dispute that's in progress.
For example, there's some big argument going on to do with the History of Transylvania... I have absolutely no interest in the history of Transylvania at all, so I try to bring the contentious parties back to the specific point of what they're arguing about, and then try to draw the discussion back to Wikipedia policies, mainly verifiability.
If you can give me a link to a specific (project) page that you're thinking of with regard to unsourced claims, please do.
User:Bodnotbod
http://www.google.com/search?q=wikipedia+articles+with+unsourced+claims
Proving evidently that our internal search is lame compared with Google :)
-----Original Message----- From: Bod Notbod bodnotbod@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Jul 29, 2009 10:35 pm Subject: [WikiEN-l] Where does en:wp need most help?
Hi again,
But I'm interested to know if the good people of this list are aware of specific tasks/duties on en:wp that are woefully understaffed at the moment. Things that really need doing.
Y-E-S spells YES and you are now it. Articles with Unsourced Claims
I did what I thought was the best kind of search on en:wp relating to your reply, and it returns a lot of salient, but not specific project, pages.
I found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNSOURCED#Burden_of_evidence
Earlier on today I found the 'RFC' pages.
I'm interested in dispute resolution. I quite like the idea of getting involved in arguments as someone who, basically, doesn't know their arse from their elbow as regards the dispute that's in progress.
For example, there's some big argument going on to do with the History of Transylvania... I have absolutely no interest in the history of Transylvania at all, so I try to bring the contentious parties back to the specific point of what they're arguing about, and then try to draw the discussion back to Wikipedia policies, mainly verifiability.
If you can give me a link to a specific (project) page that you're thinking of with regard to unsourced claims, please do.
User:Bodnotbod
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
wjhonson@aol.com wrote in message news:8CBDEF1CC58B49C-1160-2141@MBLK-M09.sysops.aol.com...
http://www.google.com/search?q=wikipedia+articles+with+unsourced+claims
Proving evidently that our internal search is lame compared with Google :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_articles_with_unsourced_statements
I do not see what you mean. The internal one is denser. You can use http://toolserver.org/%7Edaniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php catscan to restrict the search to categories you want to study. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SuggestBot is probably the best tool, though, because it looks where you have already been, then finds variety of tasks for you, weighted of course in favour of fact checking.
Bod Notbod wrote:
Hi again,
But I'm interested to know if the good people of this list are aware of specific tasks/duties on en:wp that are woefully understaffed at the moment. Things that really need doing.
Y-E-S spells YES and you are now it. Articles with Unsourced Claims
I did what I thought was the best kind of search on en:wp relating to your reply, and it returns a lot of salient, but not specific project, pages.
I found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNSOURCED#Burden_of_evidence
Earlier on today I found the 'RFC' pages.
I'm interested in dispute resolution. I quite like the idea of getting involved in arguments as someone who, basically, doesn't know their arse from their elbow as regards the dispute that's in progress.
For example, there's some big argument going on to do with the History of Transylvania... I have absolutely no interest in the history of Transylvania at all, so I try to bring the contentious parties back to the specific point of what they're arguing about, and then try to draw the discussion back to Wikipedia policies, mainly verifiability.
I think that the need described, at your request, by wjhonson has nothing to do with dispute resolution or mediation. Tracking down sources yourself, or even checking to see if the request has already been filled but without removing the tag is a great way to contribute. Many of these articles are not controversial at all. I think we already have enough people who like getting involved in arguments.
Ec
Bod Notbod wrote:
If you can give me a link to a specific (project) page that you're thinking of with regard to unsourced claims, please do.
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Article Cleanup]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Citation cleanup]]
Also
[[Category:Articles lacking sources]].
There are plenty of other places specialised to types of article.
Charles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Unreferenced_Article_Cleanup
But I'm interested to know if the good people of this list are aware of specific tasks/duties on en:wp that are woefully understaffed at the moment. Things that really need doing.
My current view is that [[wp:1.0]] is really the only taskforce that matters, and there is a huge amount of work to be done there. Clean up the process, improve the selection, review more articles, improve the articles that are going to be released.
When deciding whether it's worth spending money on a part of a business, you have to know what the core business is, and whether the thing is core business, supports core business, or supports something that supports core business... Well, Wikipedia 1.0 is core business. Find stuff that supports that. Fixing a random unsourced fact on a random article is much less useful than fixing an unsourced fact on a TOP rated article which is going to be part of Wikipedia 1.0 (and in particular Wikipedia 0.7)...
Steve
2009/8/1 Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com:
My current view is that [[wp:1.0]] is really the only taskforce that matters, and there is a huge amount of work to be done there. Clean up the process, improve the selection, review more articles, improve the articles that are going to be released. When deciding whether it's worth spending money on a part of a business, you have to know what the core business is, and whether the thing is core business, supports core business, or supports something that supports core business... Well, Wikipedia 1.0 is core business. Find stuff that supports that. Fixing a random unsourced fact on a random article is much less useful than fixing an unsourced fact on a TOP rated article which is going to be part of Wikipedia 1.0 (and in particular Wikipedia 0.7)...
Efforts like the Wikipedia Selection for Schools are important to help too (and feed into 0.7 and 1.0). Remember, that's a real actual encyclopedia DVD being used in actual schools and hugely popular with teachers, based on all our hard work over the years.
- d.
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 1:37 AM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Efforts like the Wikipedia Selection for Schools are important to help too (and feed into 0.7 and 1.0). Remember, that's a real actual encyclopedia DVD being used in actual schools and hugely popular with teachers, based on all our hard work over the years.
*nod* Still working my way around the Wikipedia 1.0 stuff. There's so much of it, and not that well organised yet. But my point stands - we should really have a way of focusing efforts on the important articles first. Instead of "random article" we should have a weighted average thing that is more likely to send you to a high priority article.
Or something.
Steve
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Steve Bennettstevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 1:37 AM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Efforts like the Wikipedia Selection for Schools are important to help too (and feed into 0.7 and 1.0). Remember, that's a real actual encyclopedia DVD being used in actual schools and hugely popular with teachers, based on all our hard work over the years.
*nod* Still working my way around the Wikipedia 1.0 stuff. There's so much of it, and not that well organised yet. But my point stands - we should really have a way of focusing efforts on the important articles first. Instead of "random article" we should have a weighted average thing that is more likely to send you to a high priority article.
That's... a great idea!
You are aware of the various "importance" ratings some WikiProject use alongside assessment ratings?
My memory of the WP:1.0 (or 0.7 or 0.5) core articles thing for biographies was that people spent months arguing over who should be the most important 200 articles to give priority to working on, and then when that had been decided and the time came to work on the articles, people suddenly went quiet and slipped away.
Hmm.
Here we go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Core_topic...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Core_biographie...
Hey, I'm impressed!
FA: 20 GA: 24 B: 102 C: 54
Of the 200 articles, all are now C or above.
Oh, hang on, Back in November 2008 I said:
"Only one start class article left! See the assessments on the front page. Only one article from the 200 is still start class: Cai Lun. A barnstar to whoever can bring it up to C-class first. After that, there will "only" be 35 articles to bring from C-class to B-class. Carcharoth (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)"
Here is the history of the assessments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Biography_...
Back in November 2008, it was:
FA: 21 A: 2 GA: 27 B: 115 C: 34 Start: 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Te...
So in fact one of the FAs has been defeatured. The number of GAs has slipped back from 27 to 24 (from 29 to 24 if you include the A-class articles), B-class has gone from 115 to 102, and C-class from 34 to 54.
Either more accurate assessments, or the article standards are slipping. :-(
These are, remember, the 200 core biographical articles.
Carcharoth
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Carcharothcarcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Either more accurate assessments, or the article standards are slipping. :-(
Or the definitions of the standards are being raised. It's hard to tell which is the case though, as there's no obvious way to find out which were the 3 GA articles which have slipped down.
Meanwhile, for the autodidacts among us, the 200 core biographies list is a pretty interesting place to start reading. There are quite a few entries on the list I've never heard of, but seem to deserve their place. [[Shaka]], [[Laozi]], [[Thucydides]], [[Margaret Sanger]] (questionable...), [[Cai Lun]]... I should make a "book" of these articles for the next long train trip...
Steve
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Steve Bennettstevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Meanwhile, for the autodidacts among us, the 200 core biographies list is a pretty interesting place to start reading.
Definitely. I can relate. I mean if I said everything I've ever remembered for more than a month I learned on my own time, it would be only a slight exaggeration.
There are quite a few entries on the list I've never heard of, but seem to deserve their place. [[Shaka]], [[Laozi]], [[Thucydides]], [[Margaret Sanger]]
Well then, at least nobody tried to sneak Larry into it. :-)
(questionable...), [[Cai Lun]]... I should make a "book" of these articles for the next long train trip...
Steve, I might recommend to you [[The 100]] by Michael H. Hart, which is a sub-set of this "core biographies" list with few exceptions (Moses being the highest-ranked).
Incidentally I wrote on this book elsewhere on the internet a few months ago (warning: BADSITE) though being blissfully unaware that WP had a similarly populated list: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23993&view=findpost&p...
—C.W.
"Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote in message news:b8ceeef70908020616j742cfe6es9f1d6b7fa04b386f@mail.gmail.com...
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 1:37 AM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Efforts like the Wikipedia Selection for Schools are important to help too (and feed into 0.7 and 1.0). Remember, that's a real actual encyclopedia DVD being used in actual schools and hugely popular with teachers, based on all our hard work over the years.
*nod* Still working my way around the Wikipedia 1.0 stuff. There's so much of it, and not that well organised yet. But my point stands - we should really have a way of focusing efforts on the important articles first. Instead of "random article" we should have a weighted average thing that is more likely to send you to a high priority article.
Or something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:suggestbot ... See if the bot's author put weight ON articles in a selection process. The bot has tasks other than fact checking, which is really the most demanding task, so I think notbot might like some variety. _______ Ever notice the best taglines are always someone elses?