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]
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>om>:
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: