Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality assurance of articles

2017-04-15 Thread James Heilman
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality assurance of articles

2017-04-15 Thread John Erling Blad
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality assurance of articles

2017-04-15 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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

[Wikimedia-l] Quality assurance of articles

2017-04-15 Thread John Erling Blad
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The PR industry has a lot to answer for (What make me happy)

2017-04-15 Thread Richard Ames
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: >

[Wikimedia-l] The PR industry has a lot to answer for (What make me happy)

2017-04-15 Thread Richard Ames
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

2017-04-15 Thread James Salsman
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

2017-04-15 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

2017-04-15 Thread Peter Southwood
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

2017-04-15 Thread Gnangarra
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

2017-04-15 Thread Gabriel Thullen
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