Agree it is an interesting question. One would need to clearly define what
you mean by an "error" though.
Simple vandalism is a relatively easy category to look at but otherwise it
is complicated.
One has:
1) Unreffed stuff for which one can find a supporting source
2) Text that is partly supported by the source provided
3) Stuff well supported by a poor quality source
4) Stuff that is out of date but supported by an older source
5) Stuff that is controversial with different high quality sources coming
to different opinions
The better question might be:
1) What percentage of the sources used by Wikipedia are of "high quality"?
Might be somewhat less difficult to define if done within a specific area
of expertise.
2) If one looks at X number of statements on WP what percentage are well
supported by the reference associated with them. Maybe this could be grade
as not supported at all, partly supported, mostly supported, completely
supported.
This has been on my list of things to study for some time. But happy to see
someone run with it.
James
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 6:08 PM, 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>
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine