[Wikimedia-l] Community Tech survey on watchlist use

[Danny Horn]

Hi everyone,

WMF's Community Tech team is starting to work on a Cross-wiki watchlist,
one of the top 10 wishes in the Community Wishlist Survey that we conducted
at the end of last year. [1]

We're running a survey on how people use their watchlists, to help inform
our work. If you've got a minute and want to share your thoughts, here's
the survey link:

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_1BRVhdayaTyuGJ7

The survey's hosted on a third-party service. We'll be running the survey
for about a week, and once it's closed, we'll publish aggregated results on
Meta.[2] Feel free to pass the link on, if you'd like to.

Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks!

Danny Horn

Product Manager, WMF Community Tech

[1] Info on the Community Wishlist Survey:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2015_Community_Wishlist_Survey

Info on the Cross-wiki watchlist project:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Tech/Cross-wiki_watchlist

[2] Survey Privacy Statement:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Survey_Privacy_Statement_for_March_2016_Watchlist_Survey
___
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] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

[Lucas Teles]

Yeah, I am definitely watching users that violate any Wikimedia project and
I talk about it with other users publicly. What should be done different?
Should we let this users go and ignore they are violating important rules?
I will be paying atention to suggestions. And trying to do something
different is the reason I created this thread. I am pretty sure that the
regular measures won't be enough. I would never blame regular editors
though. That would be too much easy and counterproductive.

Yeah, Wikipedia Zero is a good thing. That goes without saying. And I am
not saying that because I expect something in return from the users of
Wikipedia Zero. I actually don't think many of them will improve wiki as
they use cellphones to edit and there is not yet an app for easily editing.
Other than reading, doing anything else on cellphone is too much painful.
The best thing of WP Zero is that it *provides* information for too many
people in need.

Teles

Em quinta-feira, 24 de março de 2016, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> escreveu:

> Hoi,
> So what are you saying? It is ok for people to do dastardly things and
> abuse Commons and it is even worse when people at Commons use the
> environment they know, the Internet, to do some research and expose what
> they find?
>
> Really? And I must be impressed when Mr Kolbe asks attention for it??
> Because what! It a Dutch proverb the best sailors are ashore. The same can
> be said by Mr Kolbe who is proficient in telling other people what to do
> and why he objects. That is his prerogative as it is mine to be
> underwhelmed.
>
> Be serious. When issues arise, we may work towards an understanding and a
> solution and sometimes hands get dirty. I will always support people who
> actually make a meaningful difference over people who cannot be faulted.
> Mistakes are made and when that is a problem go elsewhere. When there is a
> meaningful discussion anything is on the cards. So far this is not one.
> Thanks,
>GerarddM
>
> On 24 March 2016 at 09:04, David Emrany  > wrote:
>
> > Dear Gerard
> >
> > Correspondingly, what I find unconscionable for us is that a small
> > group of Commons editors /admins congregated on the talk page of
> > 'Teles' and discussed how to secretly spy on these new Zeropaid
> > enabled editors and monitor their Facebook-basic pages [1], [2].
> >
> > IMO had this been more widely discussed at Commons seeking solutions,
> > we would not be seeing unfortunate news articles like the one Andreas
> > Kolbe has linked to
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATeles&type=revision&diff=168565809&oldid=168565337&uselang=en
> >
> > [2]
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Teles/Angola_Facebook_Case&oldid=168514640
> >
> > On 3/20/16, Gerard Meijssen >
> wrote:
> > > Hoi,
> > > Realistically. Wikipedia is very much an enabler.
> > >
> > > Your ease to consider "simply" disabling mobile edits or uploads I find
> > > appalling. People in countries like USA or UK are very fortunate.
> Nobody
> > > would ever argue to disable their edits or uploads. At the same time
> as a
> > > movement we desperately need more and more diverse involvement. While
> you
> > > may say what you want, it is unconscionable for us to do as you suggest
> > as
> > > it is fully contrary to what we aim to achieve.
> > >
> > > What we are experiencing is a bump in the road. We have to deal with it
> > but
> > > throwing the baby with the washing water? REALLY !!
> > > Thanks,
> > >   GerardM
> > >
> > > On 19 March 2016 at 15:03, David Emrany  > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Adele
> > >>
> > >> Can we have a clear picture of Wikimedia's ‘complicated’ relationship
> > >> with net neutrality - 1year on from the Washington Post story [1]
> > >>
> > >> Can we also have specific figures on how much of WMF's traffic has
> > >> been lost / gained from key markets in Latin America and Asia after
> > >> regulators have blocked zeropaid schemes due to local concerns.
> > >>
> > >> WMF's "complicated" stance has also turned off many like-minded
> > >> support groups who stand for pure net neutrality - and not WMF's or
> > >> Facebook's ersatz versions [2]
> > >>
> > >> Lastly, if the primary aim of Wikipedia Zero is to gain readership,
> > >> why not simply disable all mobile edits / uploads from these accounts.
> > >>
> > >> David
> > >>
> > >> [1]
> > >>
> >
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/
> > >>
> > >> [2]
> > >>
> >
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/01/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-protecting-the-internet/
> > >>
> > >> On 3/19/16, Adele Vrana > wrote:
> > >> > Hi Teles,
> > >> >
> > >> > As the head of the Wikipedia Zero program, I would like to respond
> and
> > >> > provide more context to the important challenges you are bringing
> up.
> > >> >
> > >> > Last year, the Foundation increased our sec

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [FDC] Wikimédia France Annual Plan Grant - 2015-2016 R2

[Samuel Klein]

Great. Thanks for sharing while it is still in progress, Emeric.
On Mar 25, 2016 06:44, "Emeric Vallespi" 
wrote:

> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> Since 2 years, Wikimédia France provides its "APG" proposal in advance on
> meta, even if some parts are still in progress and other require
> improvements.
>
> You'll find our proposal for the 2015-2016 Round 2 here:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round2/Wikimédia_France/Proposal_form
>
> Our staff and volunteers are still working on the document. However, we
> publish it in advance to allow your feedback and proofread.
> If you want to help on these topics: you can fix minor errors, let us know
> if you noticed mistake(s), ask for clarification or suggest improvement(s).
> We'll do our best to implement your feedbacks and improve the proposal
> before the deadline, which is Friday 1st April.
>
> Moreover, if you have any questions about our programs for next year,
> please, ask :)
>
> Thanks to anyone who will help us to improve our proposal.
>
> Warmest regards,
> --
> Emeric Vallespi
> Vice President
>
> Wikimédia France
> www.wikimedia.fr | Twitter: @Wikimedia_Fr
>
> Mob. +33 6 61 15 13 12 | emeric.valle...@wikimedia.fr
> Twitter: @evallespi
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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

[Oliver Keyes]

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 
> 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 million articles can meaningfully be described as a pilot. Consider a
>> much more limited scope pilot. For example all articles within the purview
>> of wiki project medicine might be a good start, primarily because of the
>> importance of that subject matter and partly because of the strong
>> initiatives of editors in that area.
>>
>>
>> *Clarify ownership* – the seal of approval appears to be granted by a group
>> called the Project Accuracy's Editorial Review Board (PAERB). Are these WMF
>> employees? Editors who meet some criteria? Who establishes the criteria?
>>
>>
>> *Clarify mechanics* – unless there is a fundamental change to the way
>> Wikipedia works, it will be meaningless to slap a seal of approval on any
>> particular article, as that article could change literally seconds later. I
>> see two possible options although there may be more. The first and most
>> likely option is that the seal of approval appears on the article itself
>> but is actually a permanent link to a reviewed version. This concept has
>> been discussed by wiki project medicine I believe. A second option is to
>> add the seal to the article but then invoke pending changes protection. It
>> would probably have to be a new level of protection allowing only qualified
>> editors, either members of the PAERB, or vetted by the PAERB to make
>> changes. The second option will require a whole new level of bureaucracy.
>>
>>
>> *Eventual scope* – the current Wikiproject Accuracy page suggests that
>> RAAFA
>> is a level beyond GA & FA. I don’t think anyone reasonably expects that all
>> articles in the English Wikipedia will eventually become FA, so that
>> implies that it is unreasonable to assume that all, or even any
>> meaningfully significant proportion of all articles reach the level of
>> RAAFA. Is it intended to limit this to some subset such as vital articles?
>>
>>
>>
>> Sphilbrick
>> ___
>> 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,
>> 
>>
> ___
> 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, 
> 

___
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,
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 
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 million articles can meaningfully be described as a pilot. Consider a
> much more limited scope pilot. For example all articles within the purview
> of wiki project medicine might be a good start, primarily because of the
> importance of that subject matter and partly because of the strong
> initiatives of editors in that area.
>
>
> *Clarify ownership* – the seal of approval appears to be granted by a group
> called the Project Accuracy's Editorial Review Board (PAERB). Are these WMF
> employees? Editors who meet some criteria? Who establishes the criteria?
>
>
> *Clarify mechanics* – unless there is a fundamental change to the way
> Wikipedia works, it will be meaningless to slap a seal of approval on any
> particular article, as that article could change literally seconds later. I
> see two possible options although there may be more. The first and most
> likely option is that the seal of approval appears on the article itself
> but is actually a permanent link to a reviewed version. This concept has
> been discussed by wiki project medicine I believe. A second option is to
> add the seal to the article but then invoke pending changes protection. It
> would probably have to be a new level of protection allowing only qualified
> editors, either members of the PAERB, or vetted by the PAERB to make
> changes. The second option will require a whole new level of bureaucracy.
>
>
> *Eventual scope* – the current Wikiproject Accuracy page suggests that
> RAAFA
> is a level beyond GA & FA. I don’t think anyone reasonably expects that all
> articles in the English Wikipedia will eventually become FA, so that
> implies that it is unreasonable to assume that all, or even any
> meaningfully significant proportion of all articles reach the level of
> RAAFA. Is it intended to limit this to some subset such as vital articles?
>
>
>
> Sphilbrick
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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] [FDC] Wikimédia France Annual Plan Grant - 2015-2016 R2

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Thanks Emeric,I will take a look.

Regards,
Micru

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Sydney Poore 
wrote:

> Thank you, Emeric. I appreciate the commitment for community engagement.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Sydney
> On Mar 25, 2016 9:44 AM, "Emeric Vallespi" 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Wikimedians,
> >
> > Since 2 years, Wikimédia France provides its "APG" proposal in advance on
> > meta, even if some parts are still in progress and other require
> > improvements.
> >
> > You'll find our proposal for the 2015-2016 Round 2 here:
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round2/Wikimédia_France/Proposal_form
> >
> > Our staff and volunteers are still working on the document. However, we
> > publish it in advance to allow your feedback and proofread.
> > If you want to help on these topics: you can fix minor errors, let us
> know
> > if you noticed mistake(s), ask for clarification or suggest
> improvement(s).
> > We'll do our best to implement your feedbacks and improve the proposal
> > before the deadline, which is Friday 1st April.
> >
> > Moreover, if you have any questions about our programs for next year,
> > please, ask :)
> >
> > Thanks to anyone who will help us to improve our proposal.
> >
> > Warmest regards,
> > --
> > Emeric Vallespi
> > Vice President
> >
> > Wikimédia France
> > www.wikimedia.fr | Twitter: @Wikimedia_Fr
> >
> > Mob. +33 6 61 15 13 12 | emeric.valle...@wikimedia.fr
> > Twitter: @evallespi
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
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] [FDC] Wikimédia France Annual Plan Grant - 2015-2016 R2

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

hi Emeric,

I think it is a good way of engaging with the community and setting a good
example, that all organizations in the movement, including the WMF, can get
inspired by!

best,

dj

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Emeric Vallespi <
emeric.valle...@wikimedia.fr> wrote:

> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> Since 2 years, Wikimédia France provides its "APG" proposal in advance on
> meta, even if some parts are still in progress and other require
> improvements.
>
> You'll find our proposal for the 2015-2016 Round 2 here:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round2/Wikimédia_France/Proposal_form
>
> Our staff and volunteers are still working on the document. However, we
> publish it in advance to allow your feedback and proofread.
> If you want to help on these topics: you can fix minor errors, let us know
> if you noticed mistake(s), ask for clarification or suggest improvement(s).
> We'll do our best to implement your feedbacks and improve the proposal
> before the deadline, which is Friday 1st April.
>
> Moreover, if you have any questions about our programs for next year,
> please, ask :)
>
> Thanks to anyone who will help us to improve our proposal.
>
> Warmest regards,
> --
> Emeric Vallespi
> Vice President
>
> Wikimédia France
> www.wikimedia.fr | Twitter: @Wikimedia_Fr
>
> Mob. +33 6 61 15 13 12 | emeric.valle...@wikimedia.fr
> Twitter: @evallespi
> ___
> 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,
> 




-- 

__
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i grupy badawczej NeRDS
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://n wrds.kozminski.edu.pl

członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW

Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An
Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010

Recenzje
Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
Pacific Standard:
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
The Wikipedian:
http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
___
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] [FDC] Wikimédia France Annual Plan Grant - 2015-2016 R2

[Sydney Poore]

Thank you, Emeric. I appreciate the commitment for community engagement.

Warm regards,

Sydney
On Mar 25, 2016 9:44 AM, "Emeric Vallespi" 
wrote:

> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> Since 2 years, Wikimédia France provides its "APG" proposal in advance on
> meta, even if some parts are still in progress and other require
> improvements.
>
> You'll find our proposal for the 2015-2016 Round 2 here:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round2/Wikimédia_France/Proposal_form
>
> Our staff and volunteers are still working on the document. However, we
> publish it in advance to allow your feedback and proofread.
> If you want to help on these topics: you can fix minor errors, let us know
> if you noticed mistake(s), ask for clarification or suggest improvement(s).
> We'll do our best to implement your feedbacks and improve the proposal
> before the deadline, which is Friday 1st April.
>
> Moreover, if you have any questions about our programs for next year,
> please, ask :)
>
> Thanks to anyone who will help us to improve our proposal.
>
> Warmest regards,
> --
> Emeric Vallespi
> Vice President
>
> Wikimédia France
> www.wikimedia.fr | Twitter: @Wikimedia_Fr
>
> Mob. +33 6 61 15 13 12 | emeric.valle...@wikimedia.fr
> Twitter: @evallespi
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] [FDC] Wikimédia France Annual Plan Grant - 2015-2016 R2

[Emeric Vallespi]

Dear Wikimedians,

Since 2 years, Wikimédia France provides its "APG" proposal in advance on meta, 
even if some parts are still in progress and other require improvements.

You'll find our proposal for the 2015-2016 Round 2 here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round2/Wikimédia_France/Proposal_form

Our staff and volunteers are still working on the document. However, we publish 
it in advance to allow your feedback and proofread.
If you want to help on these topics: you can fix minor errors, let us know if 
you noticed mistake(s), ask for clarification or suggest improvement(s).
We'll do our best to implement your feedbacks and improve the proposal before 
the deadline, which is Friday 1st April.

Moreover, if you have any questions about our programs for next year, please, 
ask :)

Thanks to anyone who will help us to improve our proposal.

Warmest regards,
-- 
Emeric Vallespi
Vice President

Wikimédia France
www.wikimedia.fr | Twitter: @Wikimedia_Fr

Mob. +33 6 61 15 13 12 | emeric.valle...@wikimedia.fr
Twitter: @evallespi
___
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

[Gnangarra]

maybe I've been around for too long but
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team rings a
bell or two, I'm sure its still used by editors and projects to "grade"
articles
with most projects having their own internal assessment areas both on
quality and importance

then we have community wide FA, GA, peer review all of whom attest to how
comprehensive an article. And then there the one project to rule them all
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Manual_of_Style

Except very clearly we have an accept policy guide for all projects that
says "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations. WikiProjects have no
special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose
their preferences on articles
."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject

another project isnt needed to improve content or make people work
together, or to retain experienced editors there are already over 2000
projects who's scope includes doing that on differing subject matters

Accuracy implies something that is an absolute, but we have key pillars
that only require being neutral, and that means even inaccurate information
should be presented depending on the significance of its POV



On 25 March 2016 at 19:14, Andy Mabbett  wrote:

> On 25 March 2016 at 08:44, Olatunde Isaac 
> wrote:
>
> > We seek community input on a proposed WikiProject called "WikiProject
> Accuracy"
>
> I see from:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Accuracy
>
> that there is already a "Reviewed and approved accurate seal of approval."
>
> Burn it with fire, and salt the ashes.
>
> --
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
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

[Stephen Philbrick]

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 million articles can meaningfully be described as a pilot. Consider a
much more limited scope pilot. For example all articles within the purview
of wiki project medicine might be a good start, primarily because of the
importance of that subject matter and partly because of the strong
initiatives of editors in that area.


*Clarify ownership* – the seal of approval appears to be granted by a group
called the Project Accuracy's Editorial Review Board (PAERB). Are these WMF
employees? Editors who meet some criteria? Who establishes the criteria?


*Clarify mechanics* – unless there is a fundamental change to the way
Wikipedia works, it will be meaningless to slap a seal of approval on any
particular article, as that article could change literally seconds later. I
see two possible options although there may be more. The first and most
likely option is that the seal of approval appears on the article itself
but is actually a permanent link to a reviewed version. This concept has
been discussed by wiki project medicine I believe. A second option is to
add the seal to the article but then invoke pending changes protection. It
would probably have to be a new level of protection allowing only qualified
editors, either members of the PAERB, or vetted by the PAERB to make
changes. The second option will require a whole new level of bureaucracy.


*Eventual scope* – the current Wikiproject Accuracy page suggests that RAAFA
is a level beyond GA & FA. I don’t think anyone reasonably expects that all
articles in the English Wikipedia will eventually become FA, so that
implies that it is unreasonable to assume that all, or even any
meaningfully significant proportion of all articles reach the level of
RAAFA. Is it intended to limit this to some subset such as vital articles?



Sphilbrick
___
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 25 March 2016 at 08:44, Olatunde Isaac  wrote:

> We seek community input on a proposed WikiProject called "WikiProject 
> Accuracy"

I see from:

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Accuracy

that there is already a "Reviewed and approved accurate seal of approval."

Burn it with fire, and salt the ashes.

-- 
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

[Andy Mabbett]

On 25 March 2016 at 09:49, Jane Darnell  wrote:

> Just judging from this email, I tend to agree with Smallbones and based on
> the name alone I would vote against this project.

+1. "Board" has all sorts of implications of authority., none of which
would be deserved.

-- 
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

[Andy Mabbett]

 On 25 March 2016 at 08:44, Olatunde Isaac  wrote:

> However, an editor (User:Smallbones) raised a concern on whether this is in 
> line with the spirit of Wikipedia which permit anyone to freely edit its 
> content at all levels. User:Smallbones said " An Editorial Review Board 
> sounds like a very interesting idea and could be fun. But actually I think it 
> could easily violate Wikipedia rules, such as forming some sort of exclusive 
> club that others couldn't join without an invitation. If it's just another 
> rating scheme (that anybody can participate in whenever they want)"

We already have several such "exclusive clubs". Just take a look at
the way some WikiProjects operate, or how some editors refer to
themselves as "content creators", and others not. Or how the "Featured
article candidates" process is run. Or how Arbcom members keep
inventing new "rules". Or the objections to admin nominations based on
nominees not having created FAs.

-- 
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

[വിശ്വപ്രഭ]

There is no single authority on Truth and fact. There is not even a
democracy that can ensure truth and fact.

Perhaps, we could think of a secondary layer, even a Wikimedia domain of
its own,  some kind of 'Refined Wikipedia' completely independent of the
current structure, to which, 'refined' and vetted articles may be moved
regularly after some stipulated processes.

-ViswaPrabha


On 25 March 2016 at 15:56, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> There are two parts to it as far as I am concerned. More collaboration, I
> am all for it.
>
> The other part is a power grab because it means that things must meet
> "established" requirements, that is imho a bad idea. It establishes power
> struggles whereby established "truths" trump common sense without a
> reasonable argument. The argument given is that it must comply with (insert
> your alphabet soup here) and that does not convince me at all. I have my
> recipe for soup and the only thing done is impose a recipe.
>
> Wikipedia is not Nupedia and the difference is exactly a board that for all
> the "right" reasons failed to get cooperation. It is why your proposal
> fails what Wikipedia is about.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 25 March 2016 at 09:44, Olatunde Isaac 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > We seek community input on a proposed WikiProject called "WikiProject
> > Accuracy" conceptualized by Ms. Betty Wills (User:Atsme). Following a
> > recent discussion with Betty, I decided to bring it here for community
> > input because of the possible controversy that may arise from
> establishing
> > a WikiProject like this.
> >
> > The primary goals of  WikiProject Accuracy are to:
> >
> > *Increase quality of Wikipedia articles
> > *Increase reliability of Wikipedia articles
> > *Promote/improve collaboration among experienced editors
> > *Promote existing editors retention
> >
> > Betty's ideas are to form a team of Project Accuracy Coordinators to
> > oversee the project, help establish criteria and minimum qualifications
> for
> > fact-check teams, help with the project's page design and tasks and to
> form
> > additional teams comprising appointed representatives from other project
> > teams to help coordinate and organize a list of articles for review, and
> > who will serve as members of Project Accuracy's Editorial Review Board
> > (PAERB). The PAERB will be responsible for review and approval of
> articles
> > nominated to bear the "reviewed and approved for accuracy" seal in the
> top
> > right corner of the article. The ideas also aim to support the WMF's
> > "Reach" campaign and help establish or re-establish credibility in
> > Wikipedia articles that carry the RAAFA seal as a trusted source worthy
> of
> > citing at all levels of academia, government, research, etc.
> >
> > This seem like a unique approach to improving the quality of articles on
> > Wikipedia and increasing reliability of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. The
> > idea to bring experienced editors together to serve in the editorial
> board
> > of the project sounds like a great way to benefit from the specialized
> > skills of all participants.
> >
> > However, an editor (User:Smallbones) raised a concern on whether this is
> > in line with the spirit of Wikipedia which permit anyone to freely edit
> its
> > content at all levels. User:Smallbones said " An Editorial Review Board
> > sounds like a very interesting idea and could be fun. But actually I
> think
> > it could easily violate Wikipedia rules, such as forming some sort of
> > exclusive club that others couldn't join without an invitation. If it's
> > just another rating scheme (that anybody can participate in whenever they
> > want)"
> >
> >
> > I respect Smallbones concerns but I don't see a major problem with the
> > idea of establishing an Editorial Review Board (ERB) comprising of
> trusted
> > and experienced editors as board members. From the look of things,
> > WikiProject Accuracy is likely to generate controversy among Wikipedians.
> > The controversy will centered on whether this idea is against the vision
> of
> > Wikipedia or not. Thus, we seek broader community input on this proposed
> > project.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Olatunde Isaac.
> >
> > Manager, Wikipedia Education Program Nigeria.
> > Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> ___
> 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,
There are two parts to it as far as I am concerned. More collaboration, I
am all for it.

The other part is a power grab because it means that things must meet
"established" requirements, that is imho a bad idea. It establishes power
struggles whereby established "truths" trump common sense without a
reasonable argument. The argument given is that it must comply with (insert
your alphabet soup here) and that does not convince me at all. I have my
recipe for soup and the only thing done is impose a recipe.

Wikipedia is not Nupedia and the difference is exactly a board that for all
the "right" reasons failed to get cooperation. It is why your proposal
fails what Wikipedia is about.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 25 March 2016 at 09:44, Olatunde Isaac  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> We seek community input on a proposed WikiProject called "WikiProject
> Accuracy" conceptualized by Ms. Betty Wills (User:Atsme). Following a
> recent discussion with Betty, I decided to bring it here for community
> input because of the possible controversy that may arise from establishing
> a WikiProject like this.
>
> The primary goals of  WikiProject Accuracy are to:
>
> *Increase quality of Wikipedia articles
> *Increase reliability of Wikipedia articles
> *Promote/improve collaboration among experienced editors
> *Promote existing editors retention
>
> Betty's ideas are to form a team of Project Accuracy Coordinators to
> oversee the project, help establish criteria and minimum qualifications for
> fact-check teams, help with the project's page design and tasks and to form
> additional teams comprising appointed representatives from other project
> teams to help coordinate and organize a list of articles for review, and
> who will serve as members of Project Accuracy's Editorial Review Board
> (PAERB). The PAERB will be responsible for review and approval of articles
> nominated to bear the "reviewed and approved for accuracy" seal in the top
> right corner of the article. The ideas also aim to support the WMF's
> "Reach" campaign and help establish or re-establish credibility in
> Wikipedia articles that carry the RAAFA seal as a trusted source worthy of
> citing at all levels of academia, government, research, etc.
>
> This seem like a unique approach to improving the quality of articles on
> Wikipedia and increasing reliability of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. The
> idea to bring experienced editors together to serve in the editorial board
> of the project sounds like a great way to benefit from the specialized
> skills of all participants.
>
> However, an editor (User:Smallbones) raised a concern on whether this is
> in line with the spirit of Wikipedia which permit anyone to freely edit its
> content at all levels. User:Smallbones said " An Editorial Review Board
> sounds like a very interesting idea and could be fun. But actually I think
> it could easily violate Wikipedia rules, such as forming some sort of
> exclusive club that others couldn't join without an invitation. If it's
> just another rating scheme (that anybody can participate in whenever they
> want)"
>
>
> I respect Smallbones concerns but I don't see a major problem with the
> idea of establishing an Editorial Review Board (ERB) comprising of trusted
> and experienced editors as board members. From the look of things,
> WikiProject Accuracy is likely to generate controversy among Wikipedians.
> The controversy will centered on whether this idea is against the vision of
> Wikipedia or not. Thus, we seek broader community input on this proposed
> project.
>
> Best,
>
> Olatunde Isaac.
>
> Manager, Wikipedia Education Program Nigeria.
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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

[Jane Darnell]

Just judging from this email, I tend to agree with Smallbones and based on
the name alone I would vote against this project. That said, I believe I
understand the motivation behind this and I would vote for a project
called  "WikiProject
Content Synchronization" which would be the (re)birth of CoSyne, a
more-or-less forgotten project once supported by WMNL, see here (Dutch
only, sorry): https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/CoSyne

The problem with accuracy is that there is no single truth and no single
form of accuracy. Wikpedia has proven time and again that the only thing
that seems to improve accuracy over time is "more eyes". What we can do is
make it easier for casual readers to see serious discrepancies in data
across projects. The CoSyne project happened before Wikidata, but today we
can harness the power of Wikidata to make important improvements and enable
constructive edits easily. For example, work is being done to link all
images of a painting on Commons to it's Wikidata item, which enables people
who care to see more (and possibly higher quality) images of paintings they
are interested in. Making more people aware of how their statements hold up
to similar statements on other projects could be a great way forward to
attract more constructive (micro-)contributions and to improve accuracy.

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Olatunde Isaac 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> We seek community input on a proposed WikiProject called "WikiProject
> Accuracy" conceptualized by Ms. Betty Wills (User:Atsme). Following a
> recent discussion with Betty, I decided to bring it here for community
> input because of the possible controversy that may arise from establishing
> a WikiProject like this.
>
> The primary goals of  WikiProject Accuracy are to:
>
> *Increase quality of Wikipedia articles
> *Increase reliability of Wikipedia articles
> *Promote/improve collaboration among experienced editors
> *Promote existing editors retention
>
> Betty's ideas are to form a team of Project Accuracy Coordinators to
> oversee the project, help establish criteria and minimum qualifications for
> fact-check teams, help with the project's page design and tasks and to form
> additional teams comprising appointed representatives from other project
> teams to help coordinate and organize a list of articles for review, and
> who will serve as members of Project Accuracy's Editorial Review Board
> (PAERB). The PAERB will be responsible for review and approval of articles
> nominated to bear the "reviewed and approved for accuracy" seal in the top
> right corner of the article. The ideas also aim to support the WMF's
> "Reach" campaign and help establish or re-establish credibility in
> Wikipedia articles that carry the RAAFA seal as a trusted source worthy of
> citing at all levels of academia, government, research, etc.
>
> This seem like a unique approach to improving the quality of articles on
> Wikipedia and increasing reliability of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. The
> idea to bring experienced editors together to serve in the editorial board
> of the project sounds like a great way to benefit from the specialized
> skills of all participants.
>
> However, an editor (User:Smallbones) raised a concern on whether this is
> in line with the spirit of Wikipedia which permit anyone to freely edit its
> content at all levels. User:Smallbones said " An Editorial Review Board
> sounds like a very interesting idea and could be fun. But actually I think
> it could easily violate Wikipedia rules, such as forming some sort of
> exclusive club that others couldn't join without an invitation. If it's
> just another rating scheme (that anybody can participate in whenever they
> want)"
>
>
> I respect Smallbones concerns but I don't see a major problem with the
> idea of establishing an Editorial Review Board (ERB) comprising of trusted
> and experienced editors as board members. From the look of things,
> WikiProject Accuracy is likely to generate controversy among Wikipedians.
> The controversy will centered on whether this idea is against the vision of
> Wikipedia or not. Thus, we seek broader community input on this proposed
> project.
>
> Best,
>
> Olatunde Isaac.
>
> Manager, Wikipedia Education Program Nigeria.
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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

[Olatunde Isaac]

The WikiProject is likely to be extended to other Wikipedias. See: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Accuracy
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.

-Original Message-
From: "Peter Southwood" 
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 11:18:10 
To: ; 'Wikimedia Mailing 
List'
Subject: RE: [Wikimedia-l] WikiProject Accuracy

Is this restricted to en: or across all Wikipedias or something else?
Is there a project discussion page somewhere?
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Olatunde Isaac
Sent: Friday, 25 March 2016 10:44 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Cc: Atsme
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] WikiProject Accuracy

Dear all,

We seek community input on a proposed WikiProject called "WikiProject Accuracy" 
conceptualized by Ms. Betty Wills (User:Atsme). Following a recent discussion 
with Betty, I decided to bring it here for community input because of the 
possible controversy that may arise from establishing a WikiProject like this.

The primary goals of  WikiProject Accuracy are to:

*Increase quality of Wikipedia articles
*Increase reliability of Wikipedia articles *Promote/improve collaboration 
among experienced editors *Promote existing editors retention

Betty's ideas are to form a team of Project Accuracy Coordinators to oversee 
the project, help establish criteria and minimum qualifications for fact-check 
teams, help with the project's page design and tasks and to form additional 
teams comprising appointed representatives from other project teams to help 
coordinate and organize a list of articles for review, and who will serve as 
members of Project Accuracy's Editorial Review Board (PAERB). The PAERB will be 
responsible for review and approval of articles nominated to bear the "reviewed 
and approved for accuracy" seal in the top right corner of the article. The 
ideas also aim to support the WMF's "Reach" campaign and help establish or 
re-establish credibility in Wikipedia articles that carry the RAAFA seal as a 
trusted source worthy of citing at all levels of academia, government, 
research, etc.

This seem like a unique approach to improving the quality of articles on 
Wikipedia and increasing reliability of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. The idea 
to bring experienced editors together to serve in the editorial board of the 
project sounds like a great way to benefit from the specialized skills of all 
participants. 

However, an editor (User:Smallbones) raised a concern on whether this is in 
line with the spirit of Wikipedia which permit anyone to freely edit its 
content at all levels. User:Smallbones said " An Editorial Review Board sounds 
like a very interesting idea and could be fun. But actually I think it could 
easily violate Wikipedia rules, such as forming some sort of exclusive club 
that others couldn't join without an invitation. If it's just another rating 
scheme (that anybody can participate in whenever they want)" 


I respect Smallbones concerns but I don't see a major problem with the idea of 
establishing an Editorial Review Board (ERB) comprising of trusted and 
experienced editors as board members. From the look of things, WikiProject 
Accuracy is likely to generate controversy among Wikipedians. The controversy 
will centered on whether this idea is against the vision of Wikipedia or not. 
Thus, we seek broader community input on this proposed project.

Best,

Olatunde Isaac.

Manager, Wikipedia Education Program Nigeria.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
___
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, 


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4545/11879 - Release Date: 03/24/16

___
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

[Peter Southwood]

Is this restricted to en: or across all Wikipedias or something else?
Is there a project discussion page somewhere?
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Olatunde Isaac
Sent: Friday, 25 March 2016 10:44 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Cc: Atsme
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] WikiProject Accuracy

Dear all,

We seek community input on a proposed WikiProject called "WikiProject Accuracy" 
conceptualized by Ms. Betty Wills (User:Atsme). Following a recent discussion 
with Betty, I decided to bring it here for community input because of the 
possible controversy that may arise from establishing a WikiProject like this.

The primary goals of  WikiProject Accuracy are to:

*Increase quality of Wikipedia articles
*Increase reliability of Wikipedia articles *Promote/improve collaboration 
among experienced editors *Promote existing editors retention

Betty's ideas are to form a team of Project Accuracy Coordinators to oversee 
the project, help establish criteria and minimum qualifications for fact-check 
teams, help with the project's page design and tasks and to form additional 
teams comprising appointed representatives from other project teams to help 
coordinate and organize a list of articles for review, and who will serve as 
members of Project Accuracy's Editorial Review Board (PAERB). The PAERB will be 
responsible for review and approval of articles nominated to bear the "reviewed 
and approved for accuracy" seal in the top right corner of the article. The 
ideas also aim to support the WMF's "Reach" campaign and help establish or 
re-establish credibility in Wikipedia articles that carry the RAAFA seal as a 
trusted source worthy of citing at all levels of academia, government, 
research, etc.

This seem like a unique approach to improving the quality of articles on 
Wikipedia and increasing reliability of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. The idea 
to bring experienced editors together to serve in the editorial board of the 
project sounds like a great way to benefit from the specialized skills of all 
participants. 

However, an editor (User:Smallbones) raised a concern on whether this is in 
line with the spirit of Wikipedia which permit anyone to freely edit its 
content at all levels. User:Smallbones said " An Editorial Review Board sounds 
like a very interesting idea and could be fun. But actually I think it could 
easily violate Wikipedia rules, such as forming some sort of exclusive club 
that others couldn't join without an invitation. If it's just another rating 
scheme (that anybody can participate in whenever they want)" 


I respect Smallbones concerns but I don't see a major problem with the idea of 
establishing an Editorial Review Board (ERB) comprising of trusted and 
experienced editors as board members. From the look of things, WikiProject 
Accuracy is likely to generate controversy among Wikipedians. The controversy 
will centered on whether this idea is against the vision of Wikipedia or not. 
Thus, we seek broader community input on this proposed project.

Best,

Olatunde Isaac.

Manager, Wikipedia Education Program Nigeria.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
___
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, 


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4545/11879 - Release Date: 03/24/16


___
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

[Peter Southwood]

How would this differ from Wikiprojects that already work to improve accuracy 
of articles within their scope of interest?
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Olatunde Isaac
Sent: Friday, 25 March 2016 10:44 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Cc: Atsme
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] WikiProject Accuracy

Dear all,

We seek community input on a proposed WikiProject called "WikiProject Accuracy" 
conceptualized by Ms. Betty Wills (User:Atsme). Following a recent discussion 
with Betty, I decided to bring it here for community input because of the 
possible controversy that may arise from establishing a WikiProject like this.

The primary goals of  WikiProject Accuracy are to:

*Increase quality of Wikipedia articles
*Increase reliability of Wikipedia articles *Promote/improve collaboration 
among experienced editors *Promote existing editors retention

Betty's ideas are to form a team of Project Accuracy Coordinators to oversee 
the project, help establish criteria and minimum qualifications for fact-check 
teams, help with the project's page design and tasks and to form additional 
teams comprising appointed representatives from other project teams to help 
coordinate and organize a list of articles for review, and who will serve as 
members of Project Accuracy's Editorial Review Board (PAERB). The PAERB will be 
responsible for review and approval of articles nominated to bear the "reviewed 
and approved for accuracy" seal in the top right corner of the article. The 
ideas also aim to support the WMF's "Reach" campaign and help establish or 
re-establish credibility in Wikipedia articles that carry the RAAFA seal as a 
trusted source worthy of citing at all levels of academia, government, 
research, etc.

This seem like a unique approach to improving the quality of articles on 
Wikipedia and increasing reliability of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. The idea 
to bring experienced editors together to serve in the editorial board of the 
project sounds like a great way to benefit from the specialized skills of all 
participants. 

However, an editor (User:Smallbones) raised a concern on whether this is in 
line with the spirit of Wikipedia which permit anyone to freely edit its 
content at all levels. User:Smallbones said " An Editorial Review Board sounds 
like a very interesting idea and could be fun. But actually I think it could 
easily violate Wikipedia rules, such as forming some sort of exclusive club 
that others couldn't join without an invitation. If it's just another rating 
scheme (that anybody can participate in whenever they want)" 


I respect Smallbones concerns but I don't see a major problem with the idea of 
establishing an Editorial Review Board (ERB) comprising of trusted and 
experienced editors as board members. From the look of things, WikiProject 
Accuracy is likely to generate controversy among Wikipedians. The controversy 
will centered on whether this idea is against the vision of Wikipedia or not. 
Thus, we seek broader community input on this proposed project.

Best,

Olatunde Isaac.

Manager, Wikipedia Education Program Nigeria.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
___
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, 


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4545/11879 - Release Date: 03/24/16


___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] WikiProject Accuracy

[Olatunde Isaac]

Dear all,

We seek community input on a proposed WikiProject called "WikiProject Accuracy" 
conceptualized by Ms. Betty Wills (User:Atsme). Following a recent discussion 
with Betty, I decided to bring it here for community input because of the 
possible controversy that may arise from establishing a WikiProject like this.

The primary goals of  WikiProject Accuracy are to:

*Increase quality of Wikipedia articles
*Increase reliability of Wikipedia articles
*Promote/improve collaboration among experienced editors
*Promote existing editors retention

Betty's ideas are to form a team of Project Accuracy Coordinators to oversee 
the project, help establish criteria and minimum qualifications for fact-check 
teams, help with the project's page design and tasks and to form additional 
teams comprising appointed representatives from other project teams to help 
coordinate and organize a list of articles for review, and who will serve as 
members of Project Accuracy's Editorial Review Board (PAERB). The PAERB will be 
responsible for review and approval of articles nominated to bear the "reviewed 
and approved for accuracy" seal in the top right corner of the article. The 
ideas also aim to support the WMF's "Reach" campaign and help establish or 
re-establish credibility in Wikipedia articles that carry the RAAFA seal as a 
trusted source worthy of citing at all levels of academia, government, 
research, etc.

This seem like a unique approach to improving the quality of articles on 
Wikipedia and increasing reliability of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. The idea 
to bring experienced editors together to serve in the editorial board of the 
project sounds like a great way to benefit from the specialized skills of all 
participants. 

However, an editor (User:Smallbones) raised a concern on whether this is in 
line with the spirit of Wikipedia which permit anyone to freely edit its 
content at all levels. User:Smallbones said " An Editorial Review Board sounds 
like a very interesting idea and could be fun. But actually I think it could 
easily violate Wikipedia rules, such as forming some sort of exclusive club 
that others couldn't join without an invitation. If it's just another rating 
scheme (that anybody can participate in whenever they want)" 


I respect Smallbones concerns but I don't see a major problem with the idea of 
establishing an Editorial Review Board (ERB) comprising of trusted and 
experienced editors as board members. From the look of things, WikiProject 
Accuracy is likely to generate controversy among Wikipedians. The controversy 
will centered on whether this idea is against the vision of Wikipedia or not. 
Thus, we seek broader community input on this proposed project.

Best,

Olatunde Isaac.

Manager, Wikipedia Education Program Nigeria.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
___
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,