It is a manual rating system, which can be used for quality improvements.
Cost-less rating systems have a inherit problem with gaming. That can be
counteracted with rating of the raters, often called meta rating. You use
reputation of the raters by observing disagreement and then use that to
calculate a trust when they rate articles or statements about the articles.
If there is a cost to do rating the quality of the rating will usually go
up. If there is no cost with doing a rating the quality goes down, as it
become easier to game the system.
Note that manual rating only works for subjective quality assessment.
On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 10:04 PM, James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
John, the AROWF project GSoC student implemented your
proposal last year:
https://github.com/priyankamandikal/arowf/blob/master/backlog.py
She also used WikiWho to suggest review of out-of-date passages, and both
categories and readability metrics to suggest review of unclear passages:
https://github.com/priyankamandikal/arowf/blob/master/recent_script.py
https://github.com/priyankamandikal/arowf/blob/master/copy_edit.py
This year she has agreed to co-mentor a voice-interactive tutorial system
for instructing on the use of her project, with which we plan to
simultaneously coach speech pronunciation.
On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 11:23 AM John Erling Blad <jeblad(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
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>gt;:
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_enWP_map_RENDER_small.png
WorldmapGeonamesallCountries.jpg
>
> 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>
_______________________________________________
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>