Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiProject Accuracy

[James Salsman]

Hi Olatunde,

All the WikiProjects are individually responsible for accuracy, because of
Good Article criteria 2 and 3 taken together. However, I agree with your
sentiments.

Please see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Update_Watch (inactive)

https://mediawiki.org/wiki/Accuracy_review

http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/categorder.py?page=Category:All_articles_with_broken_or_outdated_citations
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiProject Accuracy

[Andy Mabbett]

On 27 March 2016 at 09:59, Olatunde Isaac  wrote:

> I have read through series of comments by amazing members of the community 
> here and on talk pages. Some editors argued that constituting a "Project 
> Accuracy Editorial Review Board" is against the spirit of Wikipedia. This is 
> a fallacy! Review process is impeccable in every encyclopedia

You are conflating two things. No-one has said that there should be no
process of reviewing edits to Wikipedia.

> and normally Wikipedia articles are expected to pass through the review 
> process before they are visible on the main space.

That's bunkum. Please learn how Wikipedia works, before you attempt to "fix" it.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiProject Accuracy

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Respectfully, you are wrong. But that is your right. It is exactly for
attitudes like this that I hardly ever edit Wikipedia.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 27 March 2016 at 10:59, Olatunde Isaac  wrote:

> I have read through series of comments by amazing members of the community
> here and on talk pages. Some editors argued that constituting a "Project
> Accuracy Editorial Review Board" is against the spirit of Wikipedia. This
> is a fallacy! Review process is impeccable in every encyclopedia and
> normally Wikipedia articles are expected to pass through the review process
> before they are visible on the main space. Improper review is why most
> Wikipedia articles contain inaccuracies such as errors, ideological biases,
> and nonsensical or irrelevant text. If there is a way this can be
> addressed, why not? Peer review have been funded in the past but as
> Wikipedia's popularity skyrocketed, revenues to fund the project stalled
> and Jimmy decided to discontinue funding for a salaried editor-in-chief in
> December 2001, partly as a result of the internet economy at that time, and
> his vision to established an openly editable encyclopedia. Thus, the idea
> of funding content creation, editing and editorial review was aborted in
> December 2001. Shortly after Jimmy stop paying Larry Sanger who was the
> editor-in-chief, he resigned and the Nupedia website at nupedia.com was
> shut down on September 26, 2003, barely 3 months after the [[Wikimedia
> Foundation]] was established. Since December 2001, it has become common
> practice for the WMF not to fund direct content creation, editing and peer
> review. This is a major problem with the idea of establishing "Wikiproject
> Accuracy" which rely on paying editorial board members to function.
> Wikimedia Foundation cannot fund projects where individuals will create
> content, edit or review article as that comes very close to paid editing.
> Instead, the foundation fund projects that engage or motivate groups of
> people in editing or adding content to Wikimedia projects, such as
> editathons, photo walks, or contests.
>
> However, if the appointed or elected members of the Editorial Review Board
> of the project accuracy are willing to serve voluntarily, without pay, I do
> not see anything wrong with that. Betty and her team of coordinators can
> start a pilot, and Wiki project medicine might be a good start, as Stephen
> Philbrick rightfully suggested, basically as a result of the importance and
> sensitivity of that subject matter and partly because of the strong
> initiatives of editors in that area. Wikiproject Accuracy seem like a level
> beyond FA. Thus I don’t think anyone would reasonably expects that all
> articles in the English Wikipedia will immediately or eventually become FA
> talk less of RAAFA. I'm silently saying that it is unreasonable to assume
> that all, or even any meaningfully significant proportion of all articles
> will reach the level of RAAFA. Thus, I don't see "WikiProject Accuracy"
> becoming a major problem. I think Betty Wills (User:Atsme) should go ahead
> with the pilot project while we keep our fingers crossed that everyhting
> will work out as planned. Let's see what will come out of this in the next
> few months.
>
> Best,
>
> Olatunde Isaac.
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Oliver Keyes 
> Sender: "Wikimedia-l" Date: Fri,
> 25 Mar 2016 10:27:33
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiProject Accuracy
>
> Featured Article, Good Article and point of view, in sequence. Hope that
> helps.
>
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Gerard Meijssen
>  wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > Sorry but your alphabet soup makes it hard if not impossible to
> understand.
> > I do not edit en.wp and that should not be a necessity to understand what
> > is being said.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On 25 March 2016 at 14:13, Stephen Philbrick <
> stephen.w.philbr...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Improved accuracy is like motherhood and apple pie — I trust no one
> will be
> >> opposed to the goal.
> >>
> >> However the initial proposal to achieve that goal needs a fair amount of
> >> work.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *Clarify scope* – the page WikiProject_Accuracy is in the English
> >> Wikipedia, so implicitly, the initial scope is the English Wikipedia. I
> >> note that page has a scope section with no content as yet. However, I
> think
> >> taking on the entire English Wikipedia is biting off too much initially.
> >> Projects such as this work best if started as a pilot project. While
> >> someone may envision this eventually applying to all languages and treat
> >> English as the pilot, there is no way in which a project who scope is
> over
> >> 5