[Foundation-l] Quality metric : penetration and efficacy of corrections

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
There are two parts to this;

   - You will never be able to prevent such things from happening. In this
   instance the result was benign and the press is able to spell our name
   correctly
   - There are people REALLY eager to make sure that facts about subjects
   they care about is exactly right.

As a matter of fact I am at the moment in New York where the Concept Web
Alliance will have its inaugural meeting. They are at the moment very much
in the bio medical domain. This means things like diseases proteins and
stuff. They are looking into what they could do for their domain. Now this
is way more relevant then citations of a composer and musician like Mr
Jarre. When people get the information about diseases wrong, they may end up
having to decide who they believe their doctor or Wikipedia..

One of the things being considered is using a staging area for articles that
could go into Wikipedia and experiment how these articles would look best.
This is obviously for new information but it could be extended to updates to
Wikipedia content. The coordination of such a thing and the question how to
deal with the amount of new articles that this can generate is an issue. The
current thinking is that this would work when people, scientists adopt the
subjects that matter to them most and assess the changes made regularly for
the veracity of the information provided. Key would be that the information
is correct not necessaraly complete.
Thanks,
       Gerard

2009/5/7 Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com>

> Here's a hoax that persisted for weeks and was picked up by MSM articles.
>
>
> http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0506/1224245992919.html?via=mr
>
> One question is how to catch / force-verify new facts.  A totally
> separate one is how to make corrections stick / how to improve the
> rate of awareness about updates in important information by people who
> are relying on it.  What do people think about maintaining a list of
> external groups / works that rely on part of an article, or providing
> an explicit 'update' service that makes it easy to get low-traffic
> push updates to data about articles you care about?
>
> Then there could be a standard way to cite / use an article externally
> which involves a step of being added to this push process.
>
> SJ
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>