Pine and All, I have made an offer to sponsor the accuracy review bot development out of my own pocket, but if the developers' needs are more than I can afford, the question becomes, is it more appropriate to ask the WMF or WEF to supply the difference before going ahead with additional fundraising? Since the WEF is likely to encounter the greater expense for fact-checkers whether they decide to check only their students' work or both those edits and the bot-identified queue, I have been told that would be more appreciate for the WMF. I am not eliminating the possibility that fact-checking work on the bot queue may not be sponsored by either Foundation until it is fully debugged, proven, and optimized, in which case I will probably pursue both independent fundraising and advocacy of a third spin-off foundation to carefully comply with the safe harbor provisions for general fact-checking simultaneously.
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi James, > > I think that I understand your proposal better now. Thanks. > > Rather than involving Lila at this stage, I would like to suggest that you > talk directly to the Wiki Ed Foundation if you haven't already. Please do > let me know how they respond. Good-faith paid editing is a subject that > seems to be bubbling up in a number of places recently. > > Thanks, > Pine > > On Jun 5, 2015 2:35 AM, "James Salsman" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Pine, sure, the WikiEd Foundation is able to pay for fact checking >> without risking the Wikimedia Foundation's safe harbor. The funding >> model was originally going to be to crowdsourced, but now that I have >> relatively more money than time, I am probably going to pay for the >> bot development work out of pocket myself, but still plan to set up >> something along the lines of http://imgur.com/a/Pp2zr to pay for the >> fact checkers. The WikiEd Foundation has an interest in making sure >> that their students' work is not degrading the accuracy of the >> encyclopedia, and this provides them an easy way to do so. >> >> As for your final question, why should Lila not be involved in this >> discussion? Weren't you just a few days ago saying that the annual >> plan comment period should be longer and more inclusive? But I guess >> the best answer is that, if the WikiEd Foundation isn't interested in >> general accuracy review for work other than by their students, then a >> second spin-off foundation is probably going to be necessary. >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Hi James, >> > >> > I understand that WMF can't do much content work without risking its >> > DCMA >> > safe harbor, and I understand that fact checking even if paid might be a >> > net >> > benefit to the project. But I'm not sure how that relates to the >> > Education >> > mailing list, what funding model you are proposing for this work, why >> > the >> > Wiki Ed Foundation would want to include this kind of fact checking >> > within >> > its scope of work even if the funding was readily available, and why >> > Lila >> > would be involved in this discussion. Can you clarify those points? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Pine >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:42 AM, James Salsman <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> P.S. Report is at >> >> http://people.aifb.kit.edu/ffl//wikiwho/fp715-floeck.pdf >> >> and further docs at http://f-squared.org/wikiwho/ >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 10:25 AM, James Salsman <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi Aaron and Pine, >> >> > >> >> > Please see >> >> > >> >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2015-May/031684.html >> >> > >> >> > I was thrilled to see Maribel Acosta's WikiWho check-in for >> >> > Mediawiki-Utilities today, and I hope you are, too: >> >> > https://github.com/maribelacosta/wikiwho/pull/3 >> >> > >> >> > I intend to raise money independently so that someone such as Maribel >> >> > or perhaps one of her colleagues recommended by Fabian Flöck can work >> >> > on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Accuracy_review >> >> > >> >> > Once that is complete, the project calls for human fact checkers to >> >> > work on the suggested passages for proofreading and fact checking >> >> > review. I intend to raise money for them, too, but I understand that >> >> > the WMF can't have any part of hiring them to preserve the safe >> >> > harbor >> >> > DMCA provisions. Earlier in the year, I administered qualifying >> >> > examinations to hundreds of fact checker candidates, and have >> >> > transferred the results of those examinations to Lila and Dario, in >> >> > case I get run over by a bus, and also so that they can independently >> >> > confirm the quality of the examination process, questions, and >> >> > responses which they should have. >> >> > >> >> > Aaron, can you please confirm that Lila and Dario have those and >> >> > don't >> >> > need anything more from me to read them? I would love to do this >> >> > myself, but I will be very busy through the end of the year. >> >> > >> >> > Best regards, >> >> > James >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 6:09 AM, Aaron Halfaker >> >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Hi James, >> >> >> >> >> >> I've been away traveling for the last couple of weeks. Regretfully, >> >> >> I >> >> >> don't >> >> >> know what you are talking about. I see that a link was censored >> >> >> from a >> >> >> previous email in the thread. >> >> >> >> >> >> What exactly are you hoping for? That we'll dedicate some >> >> >> researcher >> >> >> time >> >> >> to a specific project? Maybe you're just looking for feedback. I >> >> >> see >> >> >> you >> >> >> mention hiring people -- but for what purpose? >> >> >> >> >> >> -Aaron >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 9:11 PM, James Salsman <[email protected]> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> P.S. I mean, the WMF can't hire them but the WEF can, and I hope >> >> >>> they >> >> >>> do >> >> >>> soon to complement the accuracy metric without expenditure. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Wednesday, June 3, 2015, James Salsman <[email protected]> >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Hi Aaron, >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Could you please confirm that Lila and Dario are in receipt of the >> >> >>>> fact-checker candidate list and associated materials? Please >> >> >>>> remember >> >> >>>> that >> >> >>>> the WEF can't hire them but the WikiEd Foundation has not yet >> >> >>>> achieved >> >> >>>> IdeaLab technology, so your assistance may still be required. >> >> >>>> Thank >> >> >>>> you for >> >> >>>> your patience. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Best regards, >> >> >>>> James Salsman >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >> >>>> From: James Salsman <[email protected]> >> >> >>>> Date: Sunday, May 31, 2015 >> >> >>>> Subject: comments on Annual Plan >> >> >>>> To: Lila Tretikov <[email protected]> >> >> >>>> Cc: Dario Taraborelli <[email protected]> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Dear Dario and Lila, >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Are you both able to see the human fact checker and proofreader >> >> >>>> candidates in >> >> >>>> [censored] ? >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Please keep the contents of that file confidential, as I promised >> >> >>>> I >> >> >>>> would >> >> >>>> not share it with commercial interests. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Please let me know your thoughts on the next best steps. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Best regards, >> >> >>>> James >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:05 PM, James Salsman >> >> >>>> <[email protected]> >> >> >>>> wrote: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Lila, >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Thank you so much. I will help Dario as much as I can. You are >> >> >>>>> both >> >> >>>>> so >> >> >>>>> great. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Best regards, >> >> >>>>> Jim >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> On Thursday, May 28, 2015, Lila Tretikov <[email protected]> >> >> >>>>> wrote: >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Hi James, >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Not sure we can "take this away" better than another volunteer, >> >> >>>>>> but >> >> >>>>>> we >> >> >>>>>> do plan to focus on quality measurements. I am CCing Dario who >> >> >>>>>> is >> >> >>>>>> in charge >> >> >>>>>> of Analytics Research to look into the specifics of what's >> >> >>>>>> involved >> >> >>>>>> here and >> >> >>>>>> how it may link to the general quality metrics. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Lila >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 7:54 AM, James Salsman >> >> >>>>>> <[email protected]> >> >> >>>>>> wrote: >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Hi Lila, >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Please take this away from me. I do not want to be in a >> >> >>>>>>> position >> >> >>>>>>> where >> >> >>>>>>> my influence over it can unduly enrich my new client by >> >> >>>>>>> degrading >> >> >>>>>>> the >> >> >>>>>>> quality of the encyclopedia. Please let me know your decision. >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Best regards, >> >> >>>>>>> James >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >> >>>>>>> From: James Salsman <[email protected]> >> >> >>>>>>> Date: Thu, May 28, 2015 at 8:52 AM >> >> >>>>>>> Subject: comments on Annual Plan >> >> >>>>>>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[email protected]> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Regarding >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16#Engineering >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Will key quality metrics for reading include accuracy of >> >> >>>>>>> articles >> >> >>>>>>> on >> >> >>>>>>> the Simple English Wikipedia? >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> To that end, will the Wikimedia Foundation please take over >> >> >>>>>>> this >> >> >>>>>>> project in full as stated here: >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2015-May/031684.html >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> I have a new contract through the end of the year and will be >> >> >>>>>>> unable >> >> >>>>>>> to devote the time I had planned. Thank you. >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Best regards, >> >> >>>>>>> James Salsman >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Education mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Education mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education > > > _______________________________________________ > Education mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education > _______________________________________________ Education mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
