Hi Everyone,
The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday, April 19,
2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC.
YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Prf0Vb-k1I
As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research. And,
you can watch our past research showcases here
<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase#April_2017>.
This month's presentations:
Using WikiBrain to visualize Wikipedia's neighborhoodsBy *Dr. Shilad Sen
<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Shilad>*While Wikipedia serves as the
world's most widely reference for humans, it also represents the most
widely use body of knowledge for algorithms that must reason about the
world. I will provide an overview of WikiBrain, a software project that
serves as a platform for Wikipedia-based algorithms. I will also demo a
brand new system built on WikiBrain that visualizes any dataset as a
topographic map whose neighborhoods correspond to related Wikipedia
articles. I hope to get feedback about which directions for these tools are
most useful to the Wikipedia research community.
--
Sarah R. Rodlund
Senior Project Coordinator-Product & Technology, Wikimedia Foundation
srodlund(a)wikimedia.org
A few years ago I suggested comparing Wikipedias and producing lists
of biographies of people who were alive on your version of Wikipedia
but dead on another. A bot writer went away, wrote a bot and at one
point we had reports running in 11 languages using data from 80
language versions.
Sadly the bot writer retired and the project is on hiatus. But it
might resume if another bot writer comes forth.
We fixed thousands of errors, mostly when long retired people were
logged as dead in their own language but not in other languages. But
we also fixed a bunch of anomalies ranging from intrawiki links
combining different people of the same name, category errors where
someone had put the year of birth into a year of death category, and
an assortment of other errors and even use of a fake news site; one of
my few French edits had an edit summary of "death was a hoax" and a
link to a site where the agent assured the fans that the chap was
still alive. French wasn't one of the eleven languages we produced
reports for, but some cross wiki working resulted in edits in a lot of
places.
Three things I remember:
first the error rate was actually quite low, and mostly sins of omission.
Secondly, quality of referencing varies a lot by language. Hence some
ongoing anomalies where we can't change the English version because we
don't have a source to cite, but we weren't confident changing the
other language version either, and judging from the age, the English
version saying the person is still alive might well be the wrong one.
Thirdly there was an interesting cultural difference re assumptions
about the very old. Different projects have different cut offs to
decide whether a sportsperson who hasn't troubled the global press
since they were thirty has shuffled off the mortal coil.
~~~~
WSC
>>> 2017-04-16 9:44 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Hoi,
>>>> How can you check for consistency when you are not able to appreciate
>> if
>>>> certain facts (like date of death) exist and are the same? What can you
>>> say
>>>> about sources when some Wikipedias insist on sources in their own
>>> language
>>>> and sources in other languages you cannot read? How do you check for
>>>> consistency when we have over 280 Wikipedias with possible content?
>>>>
>>>> Do know that only Wikidata approaches a state where it knows about all
>>> our
>>>> projects and we have not, to the best of my knowledge, assessed what"
>>>> quality of Wikidata is on interwiki links.. Case in point, I fixed an
>>> error
>>>> today about a person that was said to be dead because a Commons
>> category
>>>> was not correctly linked.
>>>>
>>>> When you study the consistency of English Wikipedia only, you only add
>> to
>>>> the current bias in research.
>>>>
>>>> When you want to know about the half life of an error, you can find in
>>> the
>>>> history when for instance a date was mentioned for a first time and
>> find
>>>> the same date in another language. This is not trivial as the format
>> of a
>>>> language is diverse think Thai for instance.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> GerardM
>>>>
>>>>> On 16 April 2017 at 02:08, John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is more about checking consistency between projects. It is
>>>>> interesting, but not quite what I was asking about. It is very
>>>> interesting
>>>>> if it would be possible to say something about half-life of an error.
>>> I'm
>>>>> pretty sure this follows number of page views if ordinary logged-in
>>>> editing
>>>>> is removed.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
>>>>> gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hoi,
>>>>>> Would checking if a date of death exists in articles be of interest
>>> to
>>>>> you.
>>>>>> The idea is that Wikidata knows about dates of death and for
>> "living
>>>>>> people" the fact of a death should be the same in all projects.
>> When
>>>> the
>>>>>> date of death is missing, there is either an issue at Wikidata (not
>>> the
>>>>>> same precision is one) or at a project.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When a difference is found, the idea is that it is each projects
>>>>>> responsibility to do what is needed. No further automation.
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> GerardM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 15 April 2017 at 23:50, John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are anyone doing any work on automated quality assurance of
>>> articles?
>>>>> Not
>>>>>>> the ORES-stuff, that is about creating hints from measured
>>> features.
>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>> thinking about verifying existence and completeness of citations,
>>> and
>>>>>>> structure of logical arguments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>>>>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>>>>>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>>>>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
>>>> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
>>> unsubscribe>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>>>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>>>>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>>>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
>>> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
>> ?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>>>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:26:41 +0000
> From: John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality assurance of articles
> Message-ID:
> <CAJcMX2nBzec0jtWt-4J-vzfVYmMbXiB9exKZx1OnQGhofqTrdA(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Sorry for the sprellig, I write this on a mobile with Norwegian
> spellchecker.
>
> Gerrards last question is about coverage, and bias, which is part of the
> overall quality for the project as such.
>
>
> Den søn. 16. apr. 2017, 19.22 skrev John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com>:
>
>> I wrote a proposal a few years ago on how we could identfy some types of
>> bias. The idea was to compare ranking of pageviews, and notify other
>> projects about missing articles. I don't think anyone has done any followup
>> om that
>>
>> Den søn. 16. apr. 2017, 19.12 skrev Gerard Meijssen <
>> gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> Humans are overrated. I saw this answer on Facebook [1] and [2] compare
>>> the
>>> two and tell me why we accept the bias in our editors. Why are we
>>> satisfied
>>> with what we write about when there is more to inform about. Remember what
>>> we aim to achieve. It does not say text, it says share the sum of all
>>> knowledge.
>>> Thanks,
>>> GerardM
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Geotagged_articles_in_e…
>>> [2]
>>>
>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/WorldmapGeonamesallCoun…
>>>
>>>> On 16 April 2017 at 18:59, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello John,
>>>>
>>>> Article quality is an interesting subject. I guess that it depends
>>>> extremely on what is the scientific discipline you come from, and what
>>>> questions you want to be answered. A linguist will have a very different
>>>> approach than a computer scientist, for example. If you ask me, only a
>>>> human being can judge an article if it comes to content quality and
>>> textual
>>>> quality, by the way. Maybe you want to elaborate on what are your
>>>> questions?
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards
>>>> Ziko
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2017-04-16 9:44 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Hoi,
>>>>> How can you check for consistency when you are not able to appreciate
>>> if
>>>>> certain facts (like date of death) exist and are the same? What can
>>> you
>>>> say
>>>>> about sources when some Wikipedias insist on sources in their own
>>>> language
>>>>> and sources in other languages you cannot read? How do you check for
>>>>> consistency when we have over 280 Wikipedias with possible content?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do know that only Wikidata approaches a state where it knows about all
>>>> our
>>>>> projects and we have not, to the best of my knowledge, assessed what
>>> the
>>>>> quality of Wikidata is on interwiki links.. Case in point, I fixed an
>>>> error
>>>>> today about a person that was said to be dead because a Commons
>>> category
>>>>> was not correctly linked.
>>>>>
>>>>> When you study the consistency of English Wikipedia only, you only
>>> add to
>>>>> the current bias in research.
>>>>>
>>>>> When you want to know about the half life of an error, you can find in
>>>> the
>>>>> history when for instance a date was mentioned for a first time and
>>> find
>>>>> the same date in another language. This is not trivial as the format
>>> of a
>>>>> language is diverse think Thai for instance.
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> GerardM
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 16 April 2017 at 02:08, John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is more about checking consistency between projects. It is
>>>>>> interesting, but not quite what I was asking about. It is very
>>>>> interesting
>>>>>> if it would be possible to say something about half-life of an
>>> error.
>>>> I'm
>>>>>> pretty sure this follows number of page views if ordinary logged-in
>>>>> editing
>>>>>> is removed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
>>>>>> gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hoi,
>>>>>>> Would checking if a date of death exists in articles be of
>>> interest
>>>> to
>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>> The idea is that Wikidata knows about dates of death and for
>>> "living
>>>>>>> people" the fact of a death should be the same in all projects.
>>> When
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> date of death is missing, there is either an issue at Wikidata
>>> (not
>>>> the
>>>>>>> same precision is one) or at a project.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When a difference is found, the idea is that it is each projects
>>>>>>> responsibility to do what is needed. No further automation.
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> GerardM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 15 April 2017 at 23:50, John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are anyone doing any work on automated quality assurance of
>>>> articles?
>>>>>> Not
>>>>>>>> the ORES-stuff, that is about creating hints from measured
>>>> features.
>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>> thinking about verifying existence and completeness of
>>> citations,
>>>> and
>>>>>>>> structure of logical arguments.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>>>>>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>>>>>>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>>>>>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
>>>>> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>>>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
>>>> unsubscribe>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>>>>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>>>>>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>>>>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
>>>> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> ?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>>>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>>>>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>>>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>> Unsubscribe:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> ?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>>>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>> ,
>>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 21:10:12 +0200
> From: "Peter Southwood" <peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net>
> To: "'Wikimedia Mailing List'" <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality assurance of articles
> Message-ID: <00ce01d2b6e5$156e6c90$404b45b0$(a)telkomsa.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Gerard,
> I looked at the two images, but have no idea of what point you are trying to make about them. Could you be a bit more descriptive?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2017 7:11 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality assurance of articles
>
> Hoi,
> Humans are overrated. I saw this answer on Facebook [1] and [2] compare the two and tell me why we accept the bias in our editors. Why are we satisfied with what we write about when there is more to inform about. Remember what we aim to achieve. It does not say text, it says share the sum of all knowledge.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> [1]
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Geotagged_articles_in_e…
> [2]
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/WorldmapGeonamesallCoun…
>
>> On 16 April 2017 at 18:59, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello John,
>>
>> Article quality is an interesting subject. I guess that it depends
>> extremely on what is the scientific discipline you come from, and what
>> questions you want to be answered. A linguist will have a very
>> different approach than a computer scientist, for example. If you ask
>> me, only a human being can judge an article if it comes to content
>> quality and textual quality, by the way. Maybe you want to elaborate
>> on what are your questions?
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Ziko
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2017-04-16 9:44 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> How can you check for consistency when you are not able to
>>> appreciate if certain facts (like date of death) exist and are the
>>> same? What can you
>> say
>>> about sources when some Wikipedias insist on sources in their own
>> language
>>> and sources in other languages you cannot read? How do you check for
>>> consistency when we have over 280 Wikipedias with possible content?
>>>
>>> Do know that only Wikidata approaches a state where it knows about
>>> all
>> our
>>> projects and we have not, to the best of my knowledge, assessed what
>>> the quality of Wikidata is on interwiki links.. Case in point, I
>>> fixed an
>> error
>>> today about a person that was said to be dead because a Commons
>>> category was not correctly linked.
>>>
>>> When you study the consistency of English Wikipedia only, you only
>>> add to the current bias in research.
>>>
>>> When you want to know about the half life of an error, you can find
>>> in
>> the
>>> history when for instance a date was mentioned for a first time and
>>> find the same date in another language. This is not trivial as the
>>> format of a language is diverse think Thai for instance.
>>> Thanks,
>>> GerardM
>>>
>>>> On 16 April 2017 at 02:08, John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This is more about checking consistency between projects. It is
>>>> interesting, but not quite what I was asking about. It is very
>>> interesting
>>>> if it would be possible to say something about half-life of an error.
>> I'm
>>>> pretty sure this follows number of page views if ordinary
>>>> logged-in
>>> editing
>>>> is removed.
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
>>>> gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hoi,
>>>>> Would checking if a date of death exists in articles be of
>>>>> interest
>> to
>>>> you.
>>>>> The idea is that Wikidata knows about dates of death and for
>>>>> "living people" the fact of a death should be the same in all
>>>>> projects. When
>>> the
>>>>> date of death is missing, there is either an issue at Wikidata
>>>>> (not
>> the
>>>>> same precision is one) or at a project.
>>>>>
>>>>> When a difference is found, the idea is that it is each projects
>>>>> responsibility to do what is needed. No further automation.
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> GerardM
>>>>>
>>>>> On 15 April 2017 at 23:50, John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Are anyone doing any work on automated quality assurance of
>> articles?
>>>> Not
>>>>>> the ORES-stuff, that is about creating hints from measured
>> features.
>>>> I'm
>>>>>> thinking about verifying existence and completeness of
>>>>>> citations,
>> and
>>>>>> structure of logical arguments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>>>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>>>>> wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to:
>>>>>> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
>>> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
>> unsubscribe>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to:
>>>>> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
>> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscr
>>>>> ibe>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to:
>>>> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> Unsubscribe:
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscrib
>>>> e>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>> wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 157, Issue 43
> ********************************************
He he... Quality is popular until someone points out errors on your own
articles! It is a quite difficult and controversial topic.
John
Den søn. 16. apr. 2017, 10.37 skrev Hajdu Kálmán <hmarcell(a)startadsl.hu>:
> Hi John,
>
> In Hungary, on the Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences of the Szent
> István University (http://gtk.sziu.hu/en) Pitlik László docents
> (Pitlik.Laszlo(a)gtk.szie.hu) works on “robot-lectors”. The idea is very
> similar with automated quality assurance. (
> http://miau.gau.hu/miau2009/index.php3?x=e0&string=lektor
> http://miau.gau.hu/miau2009/index.php3?x=e0&string=lector).
>
> You probably could contact him. But I should warn you he, as user Myx, he
> is banned in german Wikipedia, and his articles deleted in Hungarian
> Wikipedia.
>
> Kalman
>
>
> -- Eredeti üzenet --
> *Feladó:* John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com> <jeblad(a)gmail.com>
> *Címzett: *Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>,
> Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> *Elküldve:* 2017. április 15. 23:50
> *Tárgy : *[Wikimedia-l] Quality assurance of articles
>
>
> Are anyone doing any work on automated quality assurance of articles? Not
> the ORES-stuff, that is about creating hints from measured features. I'm
> thinking about verifying existence and completeness of citations, and
> structure of logical arguments.
>
> John
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Defaulting_to_gende…
Hi,
One of the unplanned outcomes from the Wikimedia Conference in Berlin,
was that the various discussions over /feeling/ more welcoming in our
language presumptions for non-male contributors made me think about
taking some practical steps on my home project. Commons is lucky that
having a standard policy language of English makes it easier to use
neutral gender in policy statements. I'm taking that further by
proposing that we stick to a neutral gender for all our policies and
help pages. In practice this means that policies avoid using "he or
she" and stick to "they" or avoid using a pronoun at all. I'm hoping
that the outcome will feel like a much more natural space for people
like me that prefer to stay gender neutral, possibly give a slightly
safer feeling to the project by the very act of making the effort, as
well as avoiding an over-emphasis on binary gender when it's pretty
easy to simply avoid it.
Comments are welcome on the specific proposal above, or you may have
ideas for other local projects to do something similar. I'm aware that
this is much more difficult to make progress on in languages such as
German or Spanish that have a presumption of male/female gender within
their vocabulary, so any cases of on-project initiatives in
non-English would be especially interesting. Solving these challenges
is an opportunity to make our projects a leader on gender neutrality,
for example getting a Wikimedia based consensus to adopt terms like
"Latinx".[1]
Links:
1. "Latinx" is a reaction against using gendered forms Latino and
Latina, in a language that has no neutral gender. This is becoming an
accepted practice in related forums and academic publications.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-people-are-using-the-term-latinx_us…
Thanks,
Fae
Wikimedia LGBT+ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_LGBT/Portal
--
faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Hey,
Just a reminder - shortly before Wikimania 2014 we created the
chairpersons' group in order to create a place for them to communicate with
each other, to consult and share.
If you are a chairperson of a recognized Wikimedia chapter (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters), you are probably
already subscribed to our mailing list.
But if you are not - please send me an email off-list so I can add you.
Thank you,
*Regards,Itzik Edri*
Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
+972-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!
Hi all!
*Summary: The first cycle of strategy conversations is ending soon.* We
hope you will contribute your answer to this question: "What do we want to
build or achieve together over the next 15 years?" -
https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10152617
This phase has been an opportunity to come up with new ideas. The next
phase is about refining these ideas to reach some consensus on the most
important ones. This means that there will still be opportunities to
contribute in the future! It also means that the focus of the conversation
will change. If you are interested in generating creative new ideas about
the future of our projects, *now is the time to share your thoughts!*
Participating is easy. Check out the participation page on Meta-Wiki's
movement strategy portal for more information. Find online discussions,
local meetups, and a survey here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10152617
One note: In consideration of the Passover and Easter holidays people
around the world are recognizing this week and weekend, we have moved the
closing day for this discussion cycle to the end of April 18 (23:59
UTC).[1] That means you have a few additional days to share your ideas -
big and small - for Wikimedia's future.
Once this discussion cycle ends next week, we will be gathering common
topics from across all the global discussions and posting them on
Meta-Wiki. That includes conversations from the wikis, meetups with
experts, discussions from affiliates, and anywhere else we have
documented.[2]
The next phase of the discussion will begin by May 1. We’ll be working
together to prioritize the thematic statements. More information on that
cycle is available on Meta-Wiki,[3] and we’ll share more when that cycle
gets started.
I have already seen and heard some fantastic ideas from our first
discussion cycle these past few weeks. I look forward to seeing what ideas
emerge in the final days of this cycle!
Un cordial saludo (Spanish translation: “Best regards”),
Katherine
PS. A version of this message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.[4]
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Participate
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Process
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Updates/7_…
--
Katherine Maher
Wikimedia Foundation
149 New Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
+1 (415) 712 4873
kmaher(a)wikimedia.org
