[Foundation-l] [EWW] Edit Wikipedia Week

Wed Nov 21 13:25:19 UTC 2007

Let me rephrase, I mean that *credentials* will play a role, at least with
our professional reviewers. Editors will still remain much as they have up
unto this point, pseudo-anonymous. Their role is not in final approval, but
merely getting the article *to* that point. Finding sources, cleaning it up,
the grunt work, that's what the editors do. Given that we do not have an
"open enrollment" system (you must be asked to become one of the editors),
this helps prevent the vandals, trolls and POV-pushers from trying to spam
Veropedia with *their* content.

Chad H.

On Nov 21, 2007 8:21 AM, Chad <innocentkiller at gmail.com> 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 at ictmarketing.co.uk> 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 at gmail.com]
> > *Sent:* 21 November 2007 13:00
> > *To:* debbie at 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 <debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk>
> > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > [mailto: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf
> > > > Of Dan Rosenthal
> > > > Sent: 20 November 2007 23:48
> > > > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> > > > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [EWW] Edit Wikipedia Week
> > > >
> > >  > 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:
> > > >
> > > > > David Gerard wrote:
> > > > >> On 20/11/2007, Waerth < waerth at asianet.co.th> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>> Because we vannot do it all! Sometimes you need to branch off
> > > > >>> specialistic projects to small groups of people. The Wikimedia
> > > > >>> projects have grown so big that the head and the body
> > > > usually walk
> > > > >>> in different directions and do different things. It is very
> > > > >>> difficult to steer so many people. Like an earlier poster
> > > > mentioned
> > > > >>> .... consensus amongst such a huge body is impossible. That is
> > > > >>> easier reached amongst a smaller group of people. I hope more
> > > > >>> initiatives like veropedia will arise!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> Open content: "Use our stuff. Please! (And give back your version
> > >
> > > > >> too.)"
> > > > >
> > > > > As the most succinct response on this I'll respond on this one.
> > > > >
> > > > > I get the message, the foundation can't do everything and
> > > > the license
> > > > > allows
> > > > > - nay - encourages projects like this. Good luck working out the
> > > > > mechanics of the process of folding stuff back in to WP.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, and judging from some of the other posts today I'm not the
> > > only
> > > > > one that didn't actually fall out of the wrong side of bed but was
> > > > > forcibly evicted before adequate sleep time had been acquired.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Brian McNeil
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> >
>