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 &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com > 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 &lt;jeblad(a)gmail.com> > > 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>

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 &lt;jeblad(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Yes I think using WD to look at stuff like dates of death between different languages would be interesting. J On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 1:44 AM, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine

Textual and factual quality are different. Often we spellcheck an article and claim it to be of good quality, but I believe that is the lesser problem although it is part of the overall quality. Den søn. 16. apr. 2017, 18.59 skrev Ziko van Dijk &lt;zvandijk(a)gmail.com&gt;om>:

Sorry for the sprellig, I write this on a mobile with Norwegian spellchecker. Gerrards last question is about coverage, and bias, which is part of the overall quality for the project as such. Den søn. 16. apr. 2017, 19.22 skrev John Erling Blad &lt;jeblad(a)gmail.com&gt;om>:

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 &lt;jeblad(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Hi John, This may be of interest to you: We are working on building recommendation systems than can help editors identify how to expand already existing articles in Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to identifying what sections are missing from an article, what citations, what images, infobox information, etc. This is research in its early days, if you'd like to follow up with it please visit https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Expanding_Wikipedia_stubs_across_l… Best, Leila Leila Zia Senior Research Scientist Wikimedia Foundation On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 2:50 PM, John Erling Blad &lt;jeblad(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Hoi, This is an interesting avenue. My I suggest one practical side of this? When you analyse articles and find that some things are missing, it will help a lot when you can target these articles to the people who are likely interested. When people interested in soccer learn that a soccer player died, they are more likely to edit even write an article. The approach for finding a subject that could do with more attention is one I applaud. When you want to do this across languages think Wikidata to define the area of interest for users. It will always include all the articles in all the languages. As you have seen with the Listeria lists, showing red links and Wikidata items is trivial. Thanks, Gerard On 17 April 2017 at 02:04, Leila Zia &lt;leila(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote:

Hoi Gerard, On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: ​You are absolutely right. This is what we even tested in the article creation recommendation experiment and you could see that providing personalized recommendations (where personalization was on the basis of matching editors interests based on their history of contributions​) does better than random important recommendations. A few pointers for you: * Check out section 2.3 of the paper at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03235.pdf to see how this was done. * I talk briefly about how we do the editor interest modeling at https://youtu.be/lHbnvRwFC_A?t=20m44s In general, we have at least two ways for recommending to people what they like to edit: one would be using the information in their past edit history and building topical models that can help us learn what topics an editor is interested in. The other is by asking the editor to provide some seeds of interest to us. For example, we ask you to tell us what kind of article you would edit, and we give you recommendations similar to the seed you provide. Each have its own advantages and you sometimes have to mix the two approaches (and more) to give the editor enough breadth and depth of topics to choose from. ​Yes, finding what is missing in a Wikipedia language by comparing language editions is relatively easy, thanks to Wikidata. :) What is hard is ranking these millions of missing articles in any language based on some notion of importance. We developed a ranking system for the research I mentioned above. You can read about it in Section 2.2 of the paper at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03235.pdf​. I talk about in less details at https://youtu.be/lHbnvRwFC_A?t=16m58s. In a nutshell: we built a prediction model that aims to predict the number of pageviews the article would receive had it existed in the destination language where it's missing today. The higher this predicted number for a missing article in a language, the more important it is to create it. Best, Leila

Hi Gerard, We're diverging from the initial thread. I'll respond to one point, we should take the rest of the discussion somewhere else. :) On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com ​No. The approach and implementation is from any language to any language. You can play with a very simplified version of the recommendations​ at https://recommend.wmflabs.org/. You can choose any language as source or destination. Best, Leila > Thanks, > GerardM > > > > On 17 April 2017 at 18:40, Leila Zia &lt;leila(a)wikimedia.org> > > Hoi Gerard, > > > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Gerard Meijssen < > > gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; > > > > > > > > > When you analyse articles and find that some things are missing, it > will > > > help a lot when you can target these articles to the people who are > > likely > > > interested. When people interested in soccer learn that a soccer player > > > died, they are more likely to edit even write an article. > > > > > > > ​You are absolutely right. This is what we even tested in the article > > creation recommendation experiment and you could see that providing > > personalized recommendations (where personalization was on the basis of > > matching editors interests based on their history of contributions​) does > > better than random important recommendations. A few pointers for you: > > > > * Check out section 2.3 of the paper at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604. > > 03235.pdf to > > see how this was done. > > * I talk briefly about how we do the editor interest modeling at > > https://youtu.be/lHbnvRwFC_A?t=20m44s > > > > In general, we have at least two ways for recommending to people what > they > > like to edit: one would be using the information in their past edit > history > > and building topical models that can help us learn what topics an editor > is > > interested in. The other is by asking the editor to provide some seeds of > > interest to us. For example, we ask you to tell us what kind of article > you > > would edit, and we give you recommendations similar to the seed you > > provide. Each have its own advantages and you sometimes have to mix the > two > > approaches (and more) to give the editor enough breadth and depth of > topics > > to choose from. > > > > > > > The approach for finding a subject that could do with more attention is > > one > > > I applaud. When you want to do this across languages think Wikidata to > > > define the area of interest for users. It will always include all the > > > articles in all the languages. As you have seen with the Listeria > lists, > > > showing red links and Wikidata items is trivial. > > > > > > > ​Yes, finding what is missing in a Wikipedia language by comparing > language > > editions is relatively easy, thanks to Wikidata. :) What is hard is > ranking > > these millions of missing articles in any language based on some notion > of > > importance. We developed a ranking system for the research I mentioned > > above. You can read about it in Section 2.2 of the paper at > > https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03235.pdf​. I talk about in less details at > > https://youtu.be/lHbnvRwFC_A?t=16m58s. In a nutshell: we built a > > prediction > > model that aims to predict the number of pageviews the article would > > receive had it existed in the destination language where it's missing > > today. The higher this predicted number for a missing article in a > > language, the more important it is to create it. > > > > Best, > > Leila > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Gerard > > > > > > On 17 April 2017 at 02:04, Leila Zia &lt;leila(a)wikimedia.org> > > > > > > Hi John, > > > > > > > > This may be of interest to you: > > > > > > > > We are working on building recommendation systems than can help > editors > > > > identify how to expand already existing articles in Wikipedia. This > > > > includes but is not limited to identifying what sections are missing > > from > > > > an article, what citations, what images, infobox information, etc. > This > > > is > > > > research in its early days, if you'd like to follow up with it please > > > visit > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Expanding_ > > > Wikipedia_stubs_across_ > > > > languages > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Leila > > > > > > > > > > > > Leila Zia > > > > Senior Research Scientist > > > > Wikimedia Foundation > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 2:50 PM, John Erling Blad &lt;jeblad(a)gmail.com&gt; > > > > > > > > > > > > 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> >