On Nov 20, 2007 9:54 PM, Marco Chiesa <chiesa.marco(a)gmail.com> wrote: It is not a Wikipedia project, it is an independent project. [Just for the record...] Michael

Have you actually looked at veropedia, or are you going based on what the name is? Oh, and it's not a "wikipedia project", whatever that is. -Dan On Nov 20, 2007, at 3:54 PM, Marco Chiesa wrote:

On 11/20/07, Marco Chiesa <chiesa.marco(a)gmail.com> wrote: It may be a little late to change the name. But thanks for the feedback. WilyD

Brian McNeil ha scritto: I've already explained I was meaning Wikiproject. On the Italian Wikipedia the namespace is called Progetto:, which translates as Project: And Wikiprojects are Wikipedia projects, not WMF projects. I know the difference, and I know that often people refer on this ML to the English Wikipedia as Wikipedia. This thread is called "Edit Wikipedia Week", so it clearly refers to Wikipedia. If someone active on the English Wikipedia (I've read this ML for long enough to know who Danny is) mentions a non-WMF project I don't know about in a thread related to Wikipedia, I assume it's something to do with Wikipedia (in English). I think I should stop replying as well, I've made more than my point. Cruccone

I agree with Dan on this. I have just heard about the project for the first time and I think it could be very very valuable to the wikimedia projects. I want to congratulate Danny and the others who started this on their initiative! This what we are actually doing the foundation projects for isn't it? For others to take our material and make it even better so knowledge and reliable knowledge at that spreads out further and further. Waerth

On 20/11/2007, Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil(a)wikinewsie.org> wrote: WMF have, as yet, not got around to doing one. {{sofixit}} is still the order of the day, in all our spheres of activity! -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On 20/11/2007, Waerth <waerth(a)asianet.co.th> wrote: Open content: "Use our stuff. Please! (And give back your version too.)" - d.

Brian: before you continue talking, and noting that I still don't see you in #veropedia Veropedia gets it's articles by parsing a Wikipedia article, generating a list of improvements (404s, disambigs, malformed templates, bad templates, readability indices etc.) and then the veropedian IMPROVES THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE until it passes the veropedia test, at which point it is uploaded. There is no folding stuff back into WP. Waking up on the wrong side of the bed is no excuse for making a contentious statement on a topic you apparently know nothing about. Sorry, I tried to be nice about it in the last email, but your response is plain childish. -Dan On Nov 20, 2007, at 6:33 PM, Brian McNeil wrote:

As a developer for Veropedia, I can personally tell you the checks we perform on articles. 1 - No fairuse images. If an image is not freely licensed (GFDL, PD, CC, or anything else applicable), we will not use it. 2 - No bad URLs. All external links must point to valid sites. 404s, 403s, 500s, all of these things are fixed or removed (whatever the case may be) 3 - Cleanup Categories/Templates - Any of the numerous cleanup categories (external links, peacock terms, et cetera ad nauseum) as well as the [citation needed] notices. 4 - Disambiguations - All link need to point to a valid wiki article if possible, disambiguations should be avoided. 5 - A variety of punctuation blacklists (refs on the wrong side of periods, quotation marks inside other punctuation, et cetera) 6 - We also check for slang, spelling and grammar problems outside of direct quotes (our parser will actually notify the uploader on the more common mistakes) 7 - Using too many of the same word will raise flags as well 8 - Overly long or overly short sentences get flagged. Also, we give our uploaders the Fog, Flesch and Flesch-Kincaid readability indexes to help them in their editing. Finally, there is the human element. Every article is (at least should, and if they aren't, that person needs speaking to) read over by a real person who judges (to the best of their ability) if an article is well written, well sourced and well formatted. If they say yes, then they import that revision to Veropedia where it remains frozen from editing (of course, new versions can be imported over old ones, and we retain *our* upload history as well as a link to Enwikis, a problem we are working on a feasible way to fix right now). Hope this clears up some of the curiosity surrounding how we decide articles are worthy of inclusion. -Chad H. On Nov 21, 2007 7:45 AM, Debbie Garside <debbie(a)ictmarketing.co.uk> wrote:

Debbie, Editor credentials *will* play a role in time to come, we haven't hit that point yet. Now that we have articles, our next focus is getting academic professionals (with verified credentials in their respective fields) to read the articles and either approve them or perhaps suggest improvements. We just haven't gotten there yet. Chad H. On Nov 21, 2007 8:17 AM, Debbie Garside <debbie(a)ictmarketing.co.uk> wrote:

Fair enough... :-) Debbie _____ From: Chad [mailto:innocentkiller@gmail.com] Sent: 21 November 2007 13:21 To: debbie(a)ictmarketing.co.uk Cc: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [EWW] Edit Wikipedia Week Debbie, Editor credentials *will* play a role in time to come, we haven't hit that point yet. Now that we have articles, our next focus is getting academic professionals (with verified credentials in their respective fields) to read the articles and either approve them or perhaps suggest improvements. We just haven't gotten there yet. Chad H. On Nov 21, 2007 8:17 AM, Debbie Garside &lt;debbie(a)ictmarketing.co.uk&gt; wrote: Hi Chad Thanks for the response but really I was looking for a more thorough methodology. To say someone looks over it "to the best of their ability" is not going to stand up in terms of assessment and benchmarking with regard to authorities data or use of externally controlled authoritative data sources as verification. What you need is a process model with usability attributes that have designated measurable, unmeasurable or computable outcomes. Editor credentials (IMHO) should be included within this process if you really want something to be authoritative. I can see that you have some computable outcomes which is a good start. Best regards Debbie _____ From: Chad [mailto:innocentkiller@gmail.com] Sent: 21 November 2007 13:00 To: debbie(a)ictmarketing.co.uk; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [EWW] Edit Wikipedia Week As a developer for Veropedia, I can personally tell you the checks we perform on articles. 1 - No fairuse images. If an image is not freely licensed (GFDL, PD, CC, or anything else applicable), we will not use it. 2 - No bad URLs. All external links must point to valid sites. 404s, 403s, 500s, all of these things are fixed or removed (whatever the case may be) 3 - Cleanup Categories/Templates - Any of the numerous cleanup categories (external links, peacock terms, et cetera ad nauseum) as well as the [citation needed] notices. 4 - Disambiguations - All link need to point to a valid wiki article if possible, disambiguations should be avoided. 5 - A variety of punctuation blacklists (refs on the wrong side of periods, quotation marks inside other punctuation, et cetera) 6 - We also check for slang, spelling and grammar problems outside of direct quotes (our parser will actually notify the uploader on the more common mistakes) 7 - Using too many of the same word will raise flags as well 8 - Overly long or overly short sentences get flagged. Also, we give our uploaders the Fog, Flesch and Flesch-Kincaid readability indexes to help them in their editing. Finally, there is the human element. Every article is (at least should, and if they aren't, that person needs speaking to) read over by a real person who judges (to the best of their ability) if an article is well written, well sourced and well formatted. If they say yes, then they import that revision to Veropedia where it remains frozen from editing (of course, new versions can be imported over old ones, and we retain *our* upload history as well as a link to Enwikis, a problem we are working on a feasible way to fix right now). Hope this clears up some of the curiosity surrounding how we decide articles are worthy of inclusion. -Chad H. On Nov 21, 2007 7:45 AM, Debbie Garside &lt;debbie(a)ictmarketing.co.uk&gt; wrote: Are there any documented general concepts, principles and requirements for assessment and benchmarking articles within Wikipedia or veropedia? Has a usability/reliability/readability model been developed? If so, can someone point me to a link? As a standardizer, I would be interested to see the model for the "veropedia test". Best regards Debbie <mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org> ] On Behalf <mailto:waerth@asianet.co.th> > wrote: _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 20/11/2007, Dan Rosenthal &lt;swatjester(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: If a Wikipedia article is handled like this and fixed up quickly, why can't the improvements be fed back to Wikipedia instantly? Obviously, if this process takes 2 weeks to complete, the original Wikipedia article will have changed too much to paste the fixed-up version over... Veropedia is a great example of how free content can be reused and improved by more specialised projects, but how much does Veropedia feed content back to Wikipedia? -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

Well, thanks for clearing this up for me. I should have done a bit more research before asking questions. It's a great initiative. On 21/11/2007, Chad &lt;innocentkiller(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

On 20/11/2007, Andrew Gray &lt;shimgray(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Assuming they actually do adopt a free content license, which they're on the verge of not doing ... - d.

Instead of complaining about it here, why don't you join #veropedia on IRC and we can explain it to you there. That should satisfy everyone, no? -Dan On Nov 20, 2007, at 6:07 PM, Brian McNeil wrote: