Re the request for discussion about the product roadmap during the metrics meeting at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJGC9zpbJpU&t=1h06m30s
Do Foundation officials intend to address supporting article accuracy review?
I have asked several specific questions about https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Develop_systems_for_accuracy_re... and I am certain that the proposal or something very similar is urgently needed for the transition from content creation to content maintenance on the largest projects. However at present there have been no response. Does the Foundation have an alternative contingency plan for article updating if active editors continue to decline? Or are all the eggs being put into the basket of hoping that someone thinks of something to reverse active editor decline, after at least a dozen such attempts have yielded zero results over the past half decade?
Hoi, Article review is important. The argument presented is that it needs action in the light of fewer people involved in article review. The reality is that at present only a subset of the articles are reviewed and only in a few Wikipedias. In addition to this, these people all use fixed positions and the reality of new editors is very much mobile.
Article review is text review first and foremost. With the influx of data in Wikidata from many sources, review of facts is increasingly possible. A first example is available in a tool that allows for the comparison of dates of death. Arguably when Wikidata and its sources, including en,wp cannot agree, it means that we have a problem that can be resolved. This new tool exists thanks to the work in pywikipedia by Amir Ladsgroup.
My point is very much that the exclusive attention to the needs of single projects will not help Wikipedia as a whole. Yes, it makes sense that article review gets attention but arguing that it is only for the WMF to do AND is to concentrate on existing practices will only lead to more stagnation for the totality that is Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM
On 5 October 2014 01:17, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Re the request for discussion about the product roadmap during the metrics meeting at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJGC9zpbJpU&t=1h06m30s
Do Foundation officials intend to address supporting article accuracy review?
I have asked several specific questions about
https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Develop_systems_for_accuracy_re... and I am certain that the proposal or something very similar is urgently needed for the transition from content creation to content maintenance on the largest projects. However at present there have been no response. Does the Foundation have an alternative contingency plan for article updating if active editors continue to decline? Or are all the eggs being put into the basket of hoping that someone thinks of something to reverse active editor decline, after at least a dozen such attempts have yielded zero results over the past half decade?
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org