[Foundation-l] [EWW] Edit Wikipedia Week

Chad innocentkiller at gmail.com
Wed Nov 21 14:35:12 UTC 2007

The editing happens right on Wikipedia. Before I import it, before I freeze
it, I fix it on Wikipedia. Once it's pulled to Veropedia, it's a static copy
of some specific revision ID, at the time, the same page as the live page on
enwiki. Once it's imported, there's no more improvement (unless we pull a
*new* enwiki version, in which case the edits are already there). There's no
reason to feed content back to enwiki, as the content *came* from enwiki to
begin with and was never changed after that.

Chad H.

On Nov 21, 2007 9:30 AM, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 20/11/2007, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> 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 at gmail.com)
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

More information about the foundation-l mailing list