2009/8/21 Anthony <[email protected]>: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Thomas Dalton <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 2009/8/20 Anthony <[email protected]>: >> > I wouldn't suggest looking at the edit history at all, just the most >> recent >> > revision as of whatever moment in time is chosen. If vandalism is found, >> > then and only then would one look through the edit history to find out >> when >> > it was added. >> >> That only works if the article is very well referenced and you have >> all the references and are willing to fact-check everything. Otherwise >> you will miss subtle vandalism like changing the date of birth by a >> year. > > > No need for the article to be referenced at all, but yes, it would be time > consuming, or at least person-time consuming.
You mean you could go and find references for the information yourself? I suppose you could, but that is completely impractical. >On the other hand, it'd > answer the question, in a way that an automated process never could do > (assuming I've got my statistical analysis right, anyway: > http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html seems to suggest a 99% confidence > level for 664 random samples out of 3 million, but I'm not sure what > "response distribution" means). The site looks like it is for surveys made up of yes/no questions, I don't think it is going to apply to this. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
