Agree it is an interesting question. One would need to clearly define what
you mean by an "error" though.
Simple vandalism is a relatively easy category to look at but otherwise it
is complicated.
One has:
1) Unreffed stuff for which one can find a supporting source
2) Text that is partly suppor
This is more about checking consistency between projects. It is
interesting, but not quite what I was asking about. It is very interesting
if it would be possible to say something about half-life of an error. I'm
pretty sure this follows number of page views if ordinary logged-in editing
is removed
Hoi,
Would checking if a date of death exists in articles be of interest to you.
The idea is that Wikidata knows about dates of death and for "living
people" the fact of a death should be the same in all projects. When the
date of death is missing, there is either an issue at Wikidata (not the
same
Are anyone doing any work on automated quality assurance of articles? Not
the ORES-stuff, that is about creating hints from measured features. I'm
thinking about verifying existence and completeness of citations, and
structure of logical arguments.
John
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/apr/15/journalism-faces-a-crisis-worldwide-we-might-be-entering-a-new-dark-age?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+AUS+v1+-+AUS+morning+mail+callout&utm_term=221852&subid=9147979&CMP=ema_632
On 16 April 2017 at 07:09, Richard Ames wrote:
>
With all the paid editing issues we see; this caused me to smile and
laugh (and cry):
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/-gvl21i.html
Regards, Richard.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
Should the Communications team hold a contest asking wikipedians to propose
new trademarks for Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods?
Ref.:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/64yf80/labgrown_meat_is_about_to_go_global_and_one_firm/dg6frig/?context=3
On a more serious note, why don't we quant
Hoi,
The more we change our practice in order to be restrictve, the more we
focus on corner cases like this one, the more we lose sight on what we aim
to achieve.
Our aim is to share in the sum of all knowledge. Giving a burger company or
anyone a black eye by negative attention is fine. Getting l
I take it that the issue here is that a COI editor changed the opening
paragraph to be more complimentary of the product, rather than that someone
reused content for commercial purposes. To me it is irrelevant whether they
were paid or not, it is the quality of the editing that matters, and
par
Gabe highlights the issue
- its not easy to identify a paid editor with one or two edits only
- Google home is the service creating the issue
- this issue is just that first sentence.
flagged revisions would work here to stop the immediacy but would never
guarantee that a good faith tid
Paid editors have been adding content to Wikipedia for a long time. Some of
them might even be doing so in accordance with the rules and guidelines,
but that is not what makes this case stand out.
The PR agency did a total of three edits, and the third one managed to pass
under the radar. They deli
11 matches
Mail list logo
