I have posted this to foundation, but for those who do not know--
Today I deleted the article [[Porchesia]], which was created on November 23, 2005, i.e., 10 months ago. The article described an island off the coast of Lebanon with a population of over 300,000. The languages are Arabic, Greek, and English.
I will gladly restore the article when someone finds me one source verifying the facts of this article. You might start by finding Porchesia on a map.
Danny
I'm pretty certain it's a hoax - there's no mention of it in the CIA world factbook entry for Lebanon, and a Google search gives no relevant hits.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/le.html http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Porchesia+-wikipedia&hl=en&lr=&...
On 01/10/06, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I have posted this to foundation, but for those who do not know--
Today I deleted the article [[Porchesia]], which was created on November 23, 2005, i.e., 10 months ago. The article described an island off the coast of Lebanon with a population of over 300,000. The languages are Arabic, Greek, and English.
I will gladly restore the article when someone finds me one source verifying the facts of this article. You might start by finding Porchesia on a map.
Danny _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Mestel wrote:
I'm pretty certain it's a hoax - there's no mention of it in the CIA world factbook entry for Lebanon, and a Google search gives no relevant hits.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/le.html http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Porchesia+-wikipedia&hl=en&lr=&...
On 01/10/06, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I have posted this to foundation, but for those who do not know--
Today I deleted the article [[Porchesia]], which was created on November 23, 2005, i.e., 10 months ago. The article described an island off the coast of Lebanon with a population of over 300,000. The languages are Arabic, Greek, and English.
I will gladly restore the article when someone finds me one source verifying the facts of this article. You might start by finding Porchesia on a map.
Danny _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It's also not in the NGA GEOnet Names Server http://www.nga.mil/gns/html/index.html dataset.
-- Neil
David Mestel wrote:
a Google search gives no relevant hits.
<gbathr cynagrq svezyl va purrx>
There are *lots* of google hits. The island, existent or not, is clearly a significant Internet meme. As such, Wikipedia needs to have an article on it, documenting the origin and spread of the meme, and accurately listing the relevant fictitious parameters which the island would have if it did exist. Danny should not have summarily deleted the article -- an orderly process of wikimprovement could have recast the article into the proper form without the present gap, during which readers who encounter the meme and turn to Wikipedia for enlightenment will come up empty-handed. The article should be restored as soon as possible.
-- sc "inclusionist" s
</gbathr cynagrq svezyl va purrx>
On 10/1/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
David Mestel wrote:
a Google search gives no relevant hits.
<gbathr cynagrq svezyl va purrx>
There are *lots* of google hits. The island, existent or not, is clearly a significant Internet meme. As such, Wikipedia needs to have an article on it, documenting the origin and spread of the meme, and accurately listing the relevant fictitious parameters which the island would have if it did exist. Danny should not have summarily deleted the article -- an orderly process of wikimprovement could have recast the article into the proper form without the present gap, during which readers who encounter the meme and turn to Wikipedia for enlightenment will come up empty-handed. The article should be restored as soon as possible.
Well, if you exclude wikipedia-based content, there are under a dozen unique google hits, most of which seem to refer to some Italian porno movie.
If this is a "significant internet meme" it is so only because it's been on Wikipedia for 10 months.
-Rich [[W:en:User:Rholton]]
Sunday, October 1, 2006, 3:58:10 PM, Richard wrote:
Well, if you exclude wikipedia-based content, there are under a dozen unique google hits, most of which seem to refer to some Italian porno movie.
It sounds like a mix of Italian "porcheria" (rubbish) with "perche sia" (why is it).
Richard Holton wrote:
On 10/1/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
David Mestel wrote:
a Google search gives no relevant hits.
<gbathr cynagrq svezyl va purrx>
There are *lots* of google hits. The island, existent or not, is clearly a significant Internet meme. As such, Wikipedia needs to have an article on it, documenting the origin and spread of the meme, and accurately listing the relevant fictitious parameters which the island would have if it did exist. Danny should not have summarily deleted the article -- an orderly process of wikimprovement could have recast the article into the proper form without the present gap, during which readers who encounter the meme and turn to Wikipedia for enlightenment will come up empty-handed. The article should be restored as soon as possible.
Well, if you exclude wikipedia-based content, there are under a dozen unique google hits, most of which seem to refer to some Italian porno movie.
If this is a "significant internet meme" it is so only because it's been on Wikipedia for 10 months.
You failed to ROT-13 the HTML tags:
<tongue planted firmly in cheek>
Good catch
On 10/1/06, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I have posted this to foundation, but for those who do not know--
Today I deleted the article [[Porchesia]], which was created on November 23, 2005, i.e., 10 months ago. The article described an island off the coast of Lebanon with a population of over 300,000. The languages are Arabic, Greek, and English.
I will gladly restore the article when someone finds me one source verifying the facts of this article. You might start by finding Porchesia on a map.
Danny _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
My Jacaranda atlas doesn't list it in the index, and I can't see a single island off the coast in the map of Lebanon (although the scale is 1:16,000,000). Nice find.
On 10/1/06, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I have posted this to foundation, but for those who do not know--
Today I deleted the article [[Porchesia]], which was created on November 23, 2005, i.e., 10 months ago. The article described an island off the coast of Lebanon with a population of over 300,000. The languages are Arabic, Greek, and English.
I will gladly restore the article when someone finds me one source verifying the facts of this article. You might start by finding Porchesia on a map.
Danny _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I have posted this to foundation, but for those who do not know--
Today I deleted the article [[Porchesia]], which was created on November 23, 2005, i.e., 10 months ago. The article described an island off the coast of Lebanon with a population of over 300,000. The languages are Arabic, Greek, and English.
I will gladly restore the article when someone finds me one source verifying the facts of this article. You might start by finding Porchesia on a map.
Must be used for top-sekrit research - with Google Earth you can clearly see places where fishing boats and sunlit waves have been photoshopped over what's really there... :-)
On a more serious note, this was an article created by a new user, with no links from anywhere (so no watchlists to be triggered). Seems bot-detectable, at least to flag for closer inspection.
Stan
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I have posted this to foundation, but for those who do not know--
Today I deleted the article [[Porchesia]], which was created on November 23, 2005, i.e., 10 months ago. The article described an island off the coast of Lebanon with a population of over 300,000. The languages are Arabic, Greek, and English.
I will gladly restore the article when someone finds me one source verifying the facts of this article. You might start by finding Porchesia on a map.
The population statistics, making it Lebanon's third largest city, and the claim that the population almost tripled since 1982 makes me wonder how much of that population can be attributed to elephants. :-)
Ec
On 10/3/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The population statistics, making it Lebanon's third largest city, and the claim that the population almost tripled since 1982 makes me wonder how much of that population can be attributed to elephants. :-)
Ec
Wait, wait... so you are saying that George Washington *didn't* infact have slaves?
--Oskar
On 10/2/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
The population statistics, making it Lebanon's third largest city, and the claim that the population almost tripled since 1982 makes me wonder how much of that population can be attributed to elephants. :-)
Wikiality in action, I tell you. Because Wikipedia (or at least one Wikipedian) says it exists, it must exist. We can thank Colbert for giving us the power to create whole islands (and a population of 300,000) just because one of us wants it to exist. Now, by deleting the article, we have doomed all these 300,000 people to death as the island resubmerges. :-)
What's troubling is that, for ten months, Wikipedia not only asserted that an island exists, but had an article documenting 'facts' about it.
That can't have a positive impact on our credibility. (Actually, it may be that nobody knows, but the fact that they *could* is a problem that, in my humble opinion, we need to take seriously.)
In keeping with tradition, I'd like to propose a technical solution that everyone can ignore. ;-)
Suggestion: Automatically insert a suitable template into new/unsourced text. I'd propose something similar to {{not verified}}.
Model 1: Have the Wiki automatically insert this template into text of a new article in the main namespace.
Model 2: Have the Wiki automatically subst this template into the beginning of all articles in the main namespace *unless* the article contains at least one ISBN/external link/<ref>/etc.
There are pros and cons to each. Model 1 is easy for a determined hoaxer to circumvent. Model 2 is trickier to implement, requiring either two passes or a flag to maintain, but more robust. It would also have the benefit (some might say drawback) of drawing attention to a lot of *currently* unsourced articles.
Food for thought, anyway.
Jake
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 08:43 -0400, Carl Peterson wrote:
On 10/2/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
The population statistics, making it Lebanon's third largest city, and the claim that the population almost tripled since 1982 makes me wonder how much of that population can be attributed to elephants. :-)
Wikiality in action, I tell you. Because Wikipedia (or at least one Wikipedian) says it exists, it must exist. We can thank Colbert for giving us the power to create whole islands (and a population of 300,000) just because one of us wants it to exist. Now, by deleting the article, we have doomed all these 300,000 people to death as the island resubmerges. :-) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Either one is easy for a determined hoaxer to circumvent. If the only requirement is an external link, ISBN, ref, etc., the hoaxer can just insert such a link.
Carl
On 10/3/06, Jake Waskett jake@waskett.org wrote:
What's troubling is that, for ten months, Wikipedia not only asserted that an island exists, but had an article documenting 'facts' about it.
That can't have a positive impact on our credibility. (Actually, it may be that nobody knows, but the fact that they *could* is a problem that, in my humble opinion, we need to take seriously.)
In keeping with tradition, I'd like to propose a technical solution that everyone can ignore. ;-)
Suggestion: Automatically insert a suitable template into new/unsourced text. I'd propose something similar to {{not verified}}.
Model 1: Have the Wiki automatically insert this template into text of a new article in the main namespace.
Model 2: Have the Wiki automatically subst this template into the beginning of all articles in the main namespace *unless* the article contains at least one ISBN/external link/<ref>/etc.
There are pros and cons to each. Model 1 is easy for a determined hoaxer to circumvent. Model 2 is trickier to implement, requiring either two passes or a flag to maintain, but more robust. It would also have the benefit (some might say drawback) of drawing attention to a lot of *currently* unsourced articles.
Food for thought, anyway.
Jake
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 08:43 -0400, Carl Peterson wrote:
On 10/2/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
The population statistics, making it Lebanon's third largest city, and the claim that the population almost tripled since 1982 makes me
wonder
how much of that population can be attributed to elephants. :-)
Wikiality in action, I tell you. Because Wikipedia (or at least one Wikipedian) says it exists, it must exist. We can thank Colbert for
giving
us the power to create whole islands (and a population of 300,000) just because one of us wants it to exist. Now, by deleting the article, we
have
doomed all these 300,000 people to death as the island resubmerges. :-) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 03/10/06, Carl Peterson carlopeterson@gmail.com wrote:
Either one is easy for a determined hoaxer to circumvent. If the only requirement is an external link, ISBN, ref, etc., the hoaxer can just insert such a link.
There's no technical measure that can circumvent a social problem on Wikipedia without ridiculous collateral damage.
With a wiki, any idiot can edit your site. Think of battling hoaxers, vandals, etc. as an arms race between the bad idiots and the good idiots.
We can't stop the bad idiots being bad before they've done so without stopping the good idiots from being good. So a technical approach that will work is one that lets the good idiots find and deal with bad content more efficiently with minimised collateral damage.
(This is the principle that means we use vandal-detection bots rather than greatly limiting what people are allowed to type.)
- d.
- d.
On 03/10/06, Jake Waskett jake@waskett.org wrote:
In keeping with tradition, I'd like to propose a technical solution that everyone can ignore. ;-) Suggestion: Automatically insert a suitable template into new/unsourced text. I'd propose something similar to {{not verified}}.
I did suggest article preloading a while ago. I *think* this is available in MediaWiki. Is it time this looks like a good idea on en:?
Something like:
'''ARTICLENAME''' is ... (a quick few sentences about it)
(a few more sentences about it)
==References==
(List what you used to write this article that others could fact-check it with.)
==External links==
* [http://somethingorother.example Page about $ARTICLENAME]
Is the time for such a thing right yet?
Model 1: Have the Wiki automatically insert this template into text of a new article in the main namespace. Model 2: Have the Wiki automatically subst this template into the beginning of all articles in the main namespace *unless* the article contains at least one ISBN/external link/<ref>/etc. There are pros and cons to each. Model 1 is easy for a determined hoaxer to circumvent. Model 2 is trickier to implement, requiring either two passes or a flag to maintain, but more robust. It would also have the benefit (some might say drawback) of drawing attention to a lot of *currently* unsourced articles.
It'd save me going around putting {{unreferenced}} on lots of articles. Mind you, method 2 could be implemented by a semi-automatic bot. I must say, I'm tempted.
- d.
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 14:19 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
Model 1: Have the Wiki automatically insert this template into text of a new article in the main namespace. Model 2: Have the Wiki automatically subst this template into the beginning of all articles in the main namespace *unless* the article contains at least one ISBN/external link/<ref>/etc. There are pros and cons to each. Model 1 is easy for a determined hoaxer to circumvent. Model 2 is trickier to implement, requiring either two passes or a flag to maintain, but more robust. It would also have the benefit (some might say drawback) of drawing attention to a lot of *currently* unsourced articles.
It'd save me going around putting {{unreferenced}} on lots of articles. Mind you, method 2 could be implemented by a semi-automatic bot. I must say, I'm tempted.
Hmm. Hadn't thought of that approach.
I have to say that I prefer {{not verified}}, because - to my mind - the emphasis is that it hasn't *yet* been verified by another, whereas the alternative strikes me as more critical. If I was a new user and had just contributed an article, the former would likely encourage me to continue, while the latter might make me disillusioned.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/3/06, Jake Waskett jake@waskett.org wrote:
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 14:19 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
Model 1: Have the Wiki automatically insert this template into text of
a
new article in the main namespace. Model 2: Have the Wiki automatically subst this template into the beginning of all articles in the main namespace *unless* the article contains at least one ISBN/external link/<ref>/etc. There are pros and cons to each. Model 1 is easy for a determined
hoaxer
to circumvent. Model 2 is trickier to implement, requiring either two passes or a flag to maintain, but more robust. It would also have the benefit (some might say drawback) of drawing attention to a lot of *currently* unsourced articles.
It'd save me going around putting {{unreferenced}} on lots of articles. Mind you, method 2 could be implemented by a semi-automatic bot. I must say, I'm tempted.
Hmm. Hadn't thought of that approach.
I have to say that I prefer {{not verified}}, because - to my mind - the emphasis is that it hasn't *yet* been verified by another, whereas the alternative strikes me as more critical. If I was a new user and had just contributed an article, the former would likely encourage me to continue, while the latter might make me disillusioned.
The concept of verification is also truer to the core principles on which the move would be based (verifiability, not truth). It is also more common in web-based circles in this context (e.g., e-mail verification to see if you really exist). That is to say, a verification statement is less alarming because we are generally more used to them.
Carl
On 03/10/06, Jake Waskett jake@waskett.org wrote:
Hmm. Hadn't thought of that approach. I have to say that I prefer {{not verified}}, because - to my mind - the emphasis is that it hasn't *yet* been verified by another, whereas the alternative strikes me as more critical. If I was a new user and had just contributed an article, the former would likely encourage me to continue, while the latter might make me disillusioned.
{{not verified}} if it's under a few days old, {{unreferenced}} if it's over.
- d.
On 10/3/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
{{not verified}} if it's under a few days old, {{unreferenced}} if it's over.
Problem is that people would rather ah read about dancing pigs. Well that an the issue that the various cleanup lists are insanely backloged.
On 03/10/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/3/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
{{not verified}} if it's under a few days old, {{unreferenced}} if it's over.
Problem is that people would rather ah read about dancing pigs. Well that an the issue that the various cleanup lists are insanely backloged.
It's a clear warning to readers as well; and something for the editors to fix if they care.
- d.
geni wrote:
On 10/3/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
{{not verified}} if it's under a few days old, {{unreferenced}} if it's over.
Problem is that people would rather ah read about dancing pigs. Well that an the issue that the various cleanup lists are insanely backloged.
The ones who believe an article about dancing pigs may have problems that are beyond the scope of this mailing list.
Ec
On 10/4/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The ones who believe an article about dancing pigs may have problems that are beyond the scope of this mailing list.
Ec
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_pigs
People are equaly likely to ignore any warnings when it comes to text being verified or not.
On 04/10/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
geni wrote:
Problem is that people would rather ah read about dancing pigs. Well that an the issue that the various cleanup lists are insanely backloged.
The ones who believe an article about dancing pigs may have problems that are beyond the scope of this mailing list.
Hey, [[Dancing pigs]] is a great article!
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 04/10/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
geni wrote:
Problem is that people would rather ah read about dancing pigs. Well that an the issue that the various cleanup lists are insanely backloged.
The ones who believe an article about dancing pigs may have problems that are beyond the scope of this mailing list.
Hey, [[Dancing pigs]] is a great article!
O:-) I admit that computer security is not a big topic for me. Even there I rely on common sense. My wife is more concerned about such things than I am. She spends less then 10% of the time on line that I do, and is far more likely to get stung by some random virus or spyware. Spouses should not share the same computer.
Ec
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 14:44 +0100, geni wrote:
On 10/3/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
{{not verified}} if it's under a few days old, {{unreferenced}} if it's over.
Problem is that people would rather ah read about dancing pigs. Well that an the issue that the various cleanup lists are insanely backloged.
I think we need to remember that these notices actually serve two functions:
1. They act as a reminder, via cleanup lists etc., to improve the quality of the article.
2. They act as a service to the reader, in effect acting as a disclaimer. In a sense, this actually helps our credibility, because letting readers know what *isn't* trustworthy helps them to identify what *is*.
Jake
On 06/10/06, Jake Waskett jake@waskett.org wrote:
I think we need to remember that these notices actually serve two functions:
- They act as a reminder, via cleanup lists etc., to improve the
quality of the article.
And as a gentle nudge to the article creator.
- They act as a service to the reader, in effect acting as a
disclaimer. In a sense, this actually helps our credibility, because letting readers know what *isn't* trustworthy helps them to identify what *is*.
Yep! We're a top 20 site; being honest about our deficiencies is a service to our readers. Besides, they might be inspired by that "Edit this page" link.
- d.
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 14:39 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
On 03/10/06, Jake Waskett jake@waskett.org wrote:
Hmm. Hadn't thought of that approach. I have to say that I prefer {{not verified}}, because - to my mind - the emphasis is that it hasn't *yet* been verified by another, whereas the alternative strikes me as more critical. If I was a new user and had just contributed an article, the former would likely encourage me to continue, while the latter might make me disillusioned.
{{not verified}} if it's under a few days old, {{unreferenced}} if it's over.
Combined with your preloaded template, that could work very nicely.
Jake
On 03/10/06, Jake Waskett jake@waskett.org wrote:
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 14:39 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
On 03/10/06, Jake Waskett jake@waskett.org wrote:
{{not verified}} if it's under a few days old, {{unreferenced}} if it's over.
Combined with your preloaded template, that could work very nicely.
Even without it, it'd help us quickly warn the reader there's nothing behind a given article!
The bot would have to be semi-auto, i.e. a human would have to look over the result.
Hmm.
- d.
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 15:23 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
On 03/10/06, Jake Waskett jake@waskett.org wrote:
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 14:39 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
On 03/10/06, Jake Waskett jake@waskett.org wrote:
{{not verified}} if it's under a few days old, {{unreferenced}} if it's over.
Combined with your preloaded template, that could work very nicely.
Even without it, it'd help us quickly warn the reader there's nothing behind a given article!
The bot would have to be semi-auto, i.e. a human would have to look over the result.
What makes you say that?
On 03/10/06, Jake Waskett jake@waskett.org wrote:
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 15:23 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
The bot would have to be semi-auto, i.e. a human would have to look over the result.
What makes you say that?
(a) people will be happier if there's a human pressing the button (b) in a crappily-formatted article, the source info may be easy for a human to spot but hard for a robot. I just changed [[Riptides]] to take the {{unreferenced}} off it since the ref was given as plain text as the last paragraph. (I put that in a more standard format as well.)
- d.
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 15:39 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
On 03/10/06, Jake Waskett jake@waskett.org wrote:
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 15:23 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
The bot would have to be semi-auto, i.e. a human would have to look over the result.
What makes you say that?
(a) people will be happier if there's a human pressing the button (b) in a crappily-formatted article, the source info may be easy for a human to spot but hard for a robot. I just changed [[Riptides]] to take the {{unreferenced}} off it since the ref was given as plain text as the last paragraph. (I put that in a more standard format as well.)
Hmm. How about using a custom template, as Carl essentially suggested, and in addition, make sure that this template explicitly states what has happened and that it will be reviewed in due course. Also append a suitable category so that it's very easy for volunteers to find and review these articles.
Is transparency a good-enough solution?
Jake
On 03/10/06, Jake Waskett jake@waskett.org wrote:
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 15:39 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
On 03/10/06, Jake Waskett jake@waskett.org wrote:
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 15:23 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
The bot would have to be semi-auto, i.e. a human would have to look over the result.
What makes you say that?
(a) people will be happier if there's a human pressing the button (b)
Hmm. How about using a custom template, as Carl essentially suggested, and in addition, make sure that this template explicitly states what has happened and that it will be reviewed in due course. Also append a suitable category so that it's very easy for volunteers to find and review these articles. Is transparency a good-enough solution?
Maybe. But if we're going to bother, semi-auto is just fine IMO. Also, if it's something
(I'm busy working out how I can do this, and arrange to do it.)
- d.
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 16:00 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
Maybe. But if we're going to bother, semi-auto is just fine IMO. Also, if it's something completely automatic, it needs much more stringent review.
(incorporating your correction)
I take your point. My only concern is that there are likely to be a *lot* of articles to review, and so one human reviewer would be a major bottleneck.
(I'm busy working out how I can do this, and arrange to do it.)
Great! If you want comments on the design, or any code reviewing, let me know, as I'd be happy to help.
Jake
On 03/10/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe. But if we're going to bother, semi-auto is just fine IMO. Also, if it's something
... completely automatic, it needs much more stringent review.
- d.
On 03/10/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/10/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe. But if we're going to bother, semi-auto is just fine IMO. Also, if it's something
... completely automatic, it needs much more stringent review.
I'm looking at [[Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser]], for instance. Note that this is designed so a human looks at every change before it happens and presses the button. You're also only supposed to use it no faster than a certain rate. And so on. And so on.
- d.
On 10/3/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/10/06, Jake Waskett jake@waskett.org wrote:
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 15:23 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
The bot would have to be semi-auto, i.e. a human would have to look over the result.
What makes you say that?
(a) people will be happier if there's a human pressing the button (b) in a crappily-formatted article, the source info may be easy for a human to spot but hard for a robot. I just changed [[Riptides]] to take the {{unreferenced}} off it since the ref was given as plain text as the last paragraph. (I put that in a more standard format as well.)
While I agree there should probably someone reviewing the changes, a "patrol" would probably pop up whose sole reason for existence is to try to put sources on everything _or_ (and this is what I fear might be more likely) to speedy half the articles out of existence.
Carl
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 10:48 -0400, Carl Peterson wrote:
On 10/3/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/10/06, Jake Waskett jake@waskett.org wrote:
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 15:23 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
The bot would have to be semi-auto, i.e. a human would have to look over the result.
What makes you say that?
(a) people will be happier if there's a human pressing the button (b) in a crappily-formatted article, the source info may be easy for a human to spot but hard for a robot. I just changed [[Riptides]] to take the {{unreferenced}} off it since the ref was given as plain text as the last paragraph. (I put that in a more standard format as well.)
While I agree there should probably someone reviewing the changes, a "patrol" would probably pop up whose sole reason for existence is to try to put sources on everything _or_ (and this is what I fear might be more likely) to speedy half the articles out of existence.
That's not necessarily a bad thing (depending on the article, and I hope and trust that most admins speedy responsibly), nor is it significantly different from what currently happens. The main difference is that the volunteers who do this find that they have a tool to make their task easier.
Jake
On 10/3/06, Jake Waskett jake@waskett.org wrote:
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 14:39 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
On 03/10/06, Jake Waskett jake@waskett.org wrote:
Hmm. Hadn't thought of that approach. I have to say that I prefer {{not verified}}, because - to my mind -
the
emphasis is that it hasn't *yet* been verified by another, whereas the alternative strikes me as more critical. If I was a new user and had just contributed an article, the former would likely encourage me to continue, while the latter might make me disillusioned.
{{not verified}} if it's under a few days old, {{unreferenced}} if it's
over.
Combined with your preloaded template, that could work very nicely.
Perhaps have a single template {{not verified|date}} where the date determines the message to be displayed. For example, if it's under five days, have "This is a new article which has not yet been verified for factual accuracy. Please add references to verify the information in this article." If it goes past that, go to the standard "this article does not cite sources" template. Possibly a transclusion of a transclusion, but the difference in the root template could help nip some of this in the bud.
Carl