Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality assurance of articles

2017-04-17 Thread Leila Zia
Hi Gerard,

We're diverging from the initial thread. I'll respond to one point, we
should take the rest of the discussion somewhere else. :)

On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

>
> So yes, your approach is good but like the translation tool it relies on
> English content.


​No. The approach and implementation is from any language to any language.
You can play with a very simplified version of the recommendations​ at
https://recommend.wmflabs.org/. You can choose any language as source or
destination.

Best,
Leila



> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
>
>
> On 17 April 2017 at 18:40, Leila Zia  wrote:
>
> > Hoi Gerard,
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > When you analyse articles and find that some things are missing, it
> will
> > > help a lot when you can target these articles to the people who are
> > likely
> > > interested. When people interested in soccer learn that a soccer player
> > > died, they are more likely to edit even write an article.
> > >
> >
> > ​You are absolutely right. This is what we even tested in the article
> > creation recommendation experiment and you could see that providing
> > personalized recommendations (where personalization was on the basis of
> > matching editors interests based on their history of contributions​) does
> > better than random important recommendations. A few pointers for you:
> >
> > * Check out section 2.3 of the paper at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.
> > 03235.pdf to
> > see how this was done.
> > * I talk briefly about how we do the editor interest modeling at
> > https://youtu.be/lHbnvRwFC_A?t=20m44s
> >
> > In general, we have at least two ways for recommending to people what
> they
> > like to edit: one would be using the information in their past edit
> history
> > and building topical models that can help us learn what topics an editor
> is
> > interested in. The other is by asking the editor to provide some seeds of
> > interest to us. For example, we ask you to tell us what kind of article
> you
> > would edit, and we give you recommendations similar to the seed you
> > provide. Each have its own advantages and you sometimes have to mix the
> two
> > approaches (and more) to give the editor enough breadth and depth of
> topics
> > to choose from.
> >
> >
> > > The approach for finding a subject that could do with more attention is
> > one
> > > I applaud. When you want to do this across languages think Wikidata to
> > > define the area of interest for users. It will always include all the
> > > articles in all the languages. As you have seen with the Listeria
> lists,
> > > showing red links and Wikidata items is trivial.
> > >
> >
> > ​Yes, finding what is missing in a Wikipedia language by comparing
> language
> > editions is relatively easy, thanks to Wikidata. :) What is hard is
> ranking
> > these millions of missing articles in any language based on some notion
> of
> > importance. We developed a ranking system for the research I mentioned
> > above. You can read about it in Section 2.2 of the paper at
> > https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03235.pdf​. I talk about in less details at
> > https://youtu.be/lHbnvRwFC_A?t=16m58s. In a nutshell: we built a
> > prediction
> > model that aims to predict the number of pageviews the article would
> > receive had it existed in the destination language where it's missing
> > today. The higher this predicted number for a missing article in a
> > language, the more important it is to create it.
> >
> > Best,
> > Leila
> >
> >
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > >  Gerard
> > >
> > > On 17 April 2017 at 02:04, Leila Zia  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi John,
> > > >
> > > > This may be of interest to you:
> > > >
> > > > We are working on building recommendation systems than can help
> editors
> > > > identify how to expand already existing articles in Wikipedia. This
> > > > includes but is not limited to identifying what sections are missing
> > from
> > > > an article, what citations, what images, infobox information, etc.
> This
> > > is
> > > > research in its early days, if you'd like to follow up with it please
> > > visit
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Expanding_
> > > Wikipedia_stubs_across_
> > > > languages
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Leila
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Leila Zia
> > > > Senior Research Scientist
> > > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 2:50 PM, John Erling Blad 
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

2017-04-17 Thread Anna Stillwell
 Hello Rogol,

I said I would get back to you on three questions (below). Plus, I’d like
to return to a point you made about "upstream" collaboration and add an
update on Maps and Interactive.

   - What do we philosophically believe: to roadmap or not to roadmap?
   - What do we currently have in terms of planning?
   - Will that change?
   - Maps and Interactive

Yes, to tech roadmaps. Generally, 12 - 18 months seems like the upper-bound
for a technical roadmap with any granularity.

Currently we have published roadmaps for individual products. They can be
found at their respective media wiki pages. We do not have a roadmap for
tech overall. We have our annual plan.  We also publish quarterly goals
that roll up to our annual plan.

We see the next step as gaining greater clarity on a movement-wide
direction and then for us all to discuss roles and responsibilities.
After, members of the Foundation will clarify a strategy.

In one of your earlier posts on this thread you said, "It so happens that I
have advocated for involving the Community in the planning more, earlier
and at a higher level.” Technologically speaking, we’d agree. The Dev
Summit this coming year will be a smaller, more focused event to engage the
technical community—both inside and outside of the foundation—"earlier and
at a higher level” collaboration.

We’ll then have a technology roadmap, on about a one-year timeline, as
anything beyond 18 months most consider fantasy.

Maps and Interactive will live on. We’ve committed to supporting maps in
the annual plan. We are putting together a team.

Thank you,
/a



On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Anna
>
> We celebrate Easter here too.  Take as long as you like.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Anna Stillwell 
> wrote:
>
>> It's a three day weekend here. I don't want to do call and response all
>> weekend if that's cool. I'll post at the beginning of next week.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Rogol Domedonfors > > wrote:
>>
>>> Anna
>>>
>>> By all means
>>>
>>> "Rogol"
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Anna Stillwell <
>>> astillw...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>
 Rogol,

 Hello. I am close to having some clarity to share. Might I extend to mid
 April?

 /a

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


[Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase April 19, 2017

2017-04-17 Thread Sarah R
Hi Everyone,

The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday, April 19,
2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC.

YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Prf0Vb-k1I

As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research. And,
you can watch our past research showcases here
.

This month's presentations:

Using WikiBrain to visualize Wikipedia's neighborhoodsBy *Dr. Shilad Sen
*While Wikipedia serves as the
world's most widely reference for humans, it also represents the most
widely use body of knowledge for algorithms that must reason about the
world. I will provide an overview of WikiBrain, a software project that
serves as a platform for Wikipedia-based algorithms. I will also demo a
brand new system built on WikiBrain that visualizes any dataset as a
topographic map whose neighborhoods correspond to related Wikipedia
articles. I hope to get feedback about which directions for these tools are
most useful to the Wikipedia research community.

-- 
Sarah R. Rodlund
Senior Project Coordinator-Product & Technology, Wikimedia Foundation
srodl...@wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality assurance of articles

2017-04-17 Thread WereSpielChequers
A few years ago I suggested  comparing Wikipedias and producing lists
of biographies of people who were alive on your version of Wikipedia
but dead on another. A bot writer went away, wrote a bot and at one
point we had reports running in 11 languages using data from 80
language versions.

Sadly the bot writer retired and the project is on hiatus. But it
might resume if another bot writer comes forth.

We fixed thousands of errors, mostly when long retired people were
logged as dead in their own language but not in other languages. But
we also fixed a bunch of anomalies ranging from intrawiki links
combining different people of the same name, category errors where
someone had put the year of birth into a year of death category, and
an assortment of other errors and even use of a fake news site; one of
my few French edits had an edit summary of "death was a hoax" and a
link to a site where the agent assured the fans that the chap was
still alive. French wasn't one of the eleven languages we produced
reports for, but some cross wiki working resulted in edits in a lot of
places.

Three things I remember:

first the error rate was actually quite low, and mostly sins of omission.

Secondly, quality of referencing varies a lot by language. Hence some
ongoing anomalies where we can't change the English version because we
don't have a source to cite, but we weren't confident changing the
other language version either, and judging from the age, the English
version saying the person is still alive might well be the wrong one.

Thirdly there was an interesting cultural difference re assumptions
about the very old. Different projects have different cut offs to
decide whether a sportsperson who hasn't troubled the global press
since they were thirty has shuffled off the mortal coil.





WSC

>>> 2017-04-16 9:44 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen :
>>>
 Hoi,
 How can you check for consistency when you are not able to appreciate
>> if
 certain facts (like date of death) exist and are the same? What can you
>>> say
 about sources when some Wikipedias insist on sources in their own
>>> language
 and sources in other languages you cannot read? How do you check for
 consistency when we have over 280 Wikipedias with possible content?

 Do know that only Wikidata approaches a state where it knows about all
>>> our
 projects and we have not, to the best of my knowledge, assessed what"
 quality of Wikidata is on interwiki links.. Case in point, I fixed an
>>> error
 today about a person that was said to be dead because a Commons
>> category
 was not correctly linked.

 When you study the consistency of English Wikipedia only, you only add
>> to
 the current bias in research.

 When you want to know about the half life of an error, you can find in
>>> the
 history when for instance a date was mentioned for a first time and
>> find
 the same date in another language. This is not trivial as the format
>> of a
 language is diverse think Thai for instance.
 Thanks,
GerardM

> On 16 April 2017 at 02:08, John Erling Blad  wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>
>> 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 precision is one) or at a project.
>>
>> When a difference is found, the idea is that it is each projects
>> responsibility to do what is needed. No further automation.
>> Thanks,
>>   GerardM
>>
>> On 15 April 2017 at 23:50, John Erling Blad 
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality assurance of articles

2017-04-17 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
When you consider Wikidata's data as a predictor of relevance and interest,
the biggest problem is that Wikidata does not hold enough data at this
time. The one approach I find missing in the approach you discuss in your
presentation is local and timely information. Of relevance here are awards
but also local events like elections. The problem is that for many
countries we do not even know about such awards. They indicate what is of
local relevance. There are many ways we can open up our community to these
awards. I will come up with ideas in the future.

So yes, your approach is good but like the translation tool it relies on
English content. It will be much better when we promote translation from
French, Russian, German and Chinese as well.

Another aspect I am totally missing are bot generated articles. We can and
should have stubs generated from data, cached and not saved as an article.
Basically they as a stepping stone towards an article. They are there to
inform in any language about what we do know.

I am missing it because the Wikimedia Foundation is not the "Wikipedia
Foundation", our aim is to share in the sum of all available knowledge and
that is what we could do when we use well presented cached data when we do
not have an article. When people dismiss the Cebuano Wikipedia effort  they
are typically trolling but what I do resent most is that we do not even
study the effect of bot generated articles and their value to readers.

Another approach is that we consider the use of our content to external
parties. This is where Wikidata can benefit from Sources that care to share
what they have. I have written about quality assurance but the bottom line
is that most of the external sources may have flaws but are no worse that
what we have. A perspective you may be able to confirm. Yet another reason
to consider external parties is that sharing our data with them can be of
benefit to our readers. When we are able to link into local library
systems, we are able to do so in the Netherlands, it becomes valuable to
our readers to include data on authors so that they can find them in their
local library. The point is that once you are adding data one more
statement is quickly added.

So yes I do like your presentation, I like it very much. It does not cover
everything and that is imho a consequence of the ingrained Wikipedia and
editor bias. We have largely forgotten that what we do is not about either
but about sharing information. If there is something that I wish for 2030
it is that we care about providing and sharing information, providing and
sharing the sum of all knowledge. Yes, well written text is to be preferred
and we should indeed do everything to get as much of this as we can.
Thanks,
   GerardM



On 17 April 2017 at 18:40, Leila Zia  wrote:

> Hoi Gerard,
>
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > When you analyse articles and find that some things are missing, it will
> > help a lot when you can target these articles to the people who are
> likely
> > interested. When people interested in soccer learn that a soccer player
> > died, they are more likely to edit even write an article.
> >
>
> ​You are absolutely right. This is what we even tested in the article
> creation recommendation experiment and you could see that providing
> personalized recommendations (where personalization was on the basis of
> matching editors interests based on their history of contributions​) does
> better than random important recommendations. A few pointers for you:
>
> * Check out section 2.3 of the paper at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.
> 03235.pdf to
> see how this was done.
> * I talk briefly about how we do the editor interest modeling at
> https://youtu.be/lHbnvRwFC_A?t=20m44s
>
> In general, we have at least two ways for recommending to people what they
> like to edit: one would be using the information in their past edit history
> and building topical models that can help us learn what topics an editor is
> interested in. The other is by asking the editor to provide some seeds of
> interest to us. For example, we ask you to tell us what kind of article you
> would edit, and we give you recommendations similar to the seed you
> provide. Each have its own advantages and you sometimes have to mix the two
> approaches (and more) to give the editor enough breadth and depth of topics
> to choose from.
>
>
> > The approach for finding a subject that could do with more attention is
> one
> > I applaud. When you want to do this across languages think Wikidata to
> > define the area of interest for users. It will always include all the
> > articles in all the languages. As you have seen with the Listeria lists,
> > showing red links and Wikidata items is trivial.
> >
>
> ​Yes, finding what is missing in a Wikipedia language by comparing language
> editions is relatively easy, thanks to Wikidata. :) What is hard is ranking
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality assurance of articles

2017-04-17 Thread Leila Zia
Hoi Gerard,

On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

>
> When you analyse articles and find that some things are missing, it will
> help a lot when you can target these articles to the people who are likely
> interested. When people interested in soccer learn that a soccer player
> died, they are more likely to edit even write an article.
>

​You are absolutely right. This is what we even tested in the article
creation recommendation experiment and you could see that providing
personalized recommendations (where personalization was on the basis of
matching editors interests based on their history of contributions​) does
better than random important recommendations. A few pointers for you:

* Check out section 2.3 of the paper at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03235.pdf to
see how this was done.
* I talk briefly about how we do the editor interest modeling at
https://youtu.be/lHbnvRwFC_A?t=20m44s

In general, we have at least two ways for recommending to people what they
like to edit: one would be using the information in their past edit history
and building topical models that can help us learn what topics an editor is
interested in. The other is by asking the editor to provide some seeds of
interest to us. For example, we ask you to tell us what kind of article you
would edit, and we give you recommendations similar to the seed you
provide. Each have its own advantages and you sometimes have to mix the two
approaches (and more) to give the editor enough breadth and depth of topics
to choose from.


> The approach for finding a subject that could do with more attention is one
> I applaud. When you want to do this across languages think Wikidata to
> define the area of interest for users. It will always include all the
> articles in all the languages. As you have seen with the Listeria lists,
> showing red links and Wikidata items is trivial.
>

​Yes, finding what is missing in a Wikipedia language by comparing language
editions is relatively easy, thanks to Wikidata. :) What is hard is ranking
these millions of missing articles in any language based on some notion of
importance. We developed a ranking system for the research I mentioned
above. You can read about it in Section 2.2 of the paper at
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03235.pdf​. I talk about in less details at
https://youtu.be/lHbnvRwFC_A?t=16m58s. In a nutshell: we built a prediction
model that aims to predict the number of pageviews the article would
receive had it existed in the destination language where it's missing
today. The higher this predicted number for a missing article in a
language, the more important it is to create it.

Best,
Leila



> Thanks,
>  Gerard
>
> On 17 April 2017 at 02:04, Leila Zia  wrote:
>
> > Hi John,
> >
> > This may be of interest to you:
> >
> > We are working on building recommendation systems than can help editors
> > identify how to expand already existing articles in Wikipedia. This
> > includes but is not limited to identifying what sections are missing from
> > an article, what citations, what images, infobox information, etc. This
> is
> > research in its early days, if you'd like to follow up with it please
> visit
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Expanding_
> Wikipedia_stubs_across_
> > languages
> >
> > Best,
> > Leila
> >
> >
> > Leila Zia
> > Senior Research Scientist
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 2:50 PM, John Erling Blad 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality assurance of articles

2017-04-17 Thread Leila Zia
On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 11:58 PM, John Erling Blad  wrote:

> Definitly part of the overall quality. I wonder, do you have any stats om
> how much positive change the previous attempts have triggered?
>

​[John and I went off-list for me to understand which specific previous
attempts he had in mind when asking the above. I have a better sense now
and I'm responding to that.]

I'm providing some pointers to indications or controlled experiment results
that show how well recommendations in the space of article creation work
(Note that I don't have results for the article expansion work to share for
now.):

We built an end-to-end system that identifies missing articles in a given
language, ranks them according to their importance in that given language,
and recommends them to editors who are interested to create them (interest
is inferred based on the topic of the articles the editor has edited in the
recent past). We ran a controlled experiment and showed that you can
increase article creation rate in Wikipedia by a factor of 3.2 if you do
personalized recommendations in the setting of the experiment (which was
editors receiving recommendations over email) while maintaining the same
level of quality as organically created articles on Wikipedia. We also
showed that personalized recommendations increase article creation rate by
a factor of almost 2 when compared to non-personalized recommendations. If
you are interested about the details of this study, you can read the paper
that describes it fully at https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.03235. If you prefer
a verbal presentation on this topic, I've recently presented this work, why
it's important, and some of the work we've started in the article expansion
research in CITRIS Exchange seminar series
 in
University of California, Berkeley. You can check out the presentation
slides

 and the video of the presentation

.

Outside of the experimental setting, Content Translation is using the
recommendation
API  behind the
research I explained above as part of their "Suggestions" feature. Every
week, around 180 articles get published on Wikipedia using Suggestions
feature alone. This is around 6-9% of all articles created via Content
Translation every week. So, we have some evidence that in practice, these
recommendations work, too.

I hope this helps.

Best,
Leila



>
> Den man. 17. apr. 2017, 02.04 skrev Leila Zia :
>
> > Hi John,
> >
> > This may be of interest to you:
> >
> > We are working on building recommendation systems than can help editors
> > identify how to expand already existing articles in Wikipedia. This
> > includes but is not limited to identifying what sections are missing from
> > an article, what citations, what images, infobox information, etc. This
> is
> > research in its early days, if you'd like to follow up with it please
> visit
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Expanding_Wikipedia
> _stubs_across_languages
> >
> > Best,
> > Leila
> >
> >
> > Leila Zia
> > Senior Research Scientist
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 2:50 PM, John Erling Blad 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > 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 and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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/wik
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality assurance of articles

2017-04-17 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
This is an interesting avenue. My I suggest one practical side of this?

When you analyse articles and find that some things are missing, it will
help a lot when you can target these articles to the people who are likely
interested. When people interested in soccer learn that a soccer player
died, they are more likely to edit even write an article.

The approach for finding a subject that could do with more attention is one
I applaud. When you want to do this across languages think Wikidata to
define the area of interest for users. It will always include all the
articles in all the languages. As you have seen with the Listeria lists,
showing red links and Wikidata items is trivial.
Thanks,
 Gerard

On 17 April 2017 at 02:04, Leila Zia  wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> This may be of interest to you:
>
> We are working on building recommendation systems than can help editors
> identify how to expand already existing articles in Wikipedia. This
> includes but is not limited to identifying what sections are missing from
> an article, what citations, what images, infobox information, etc. This is
> research in its early days, if you'd like to follow up with it please visit
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Expanding_Wikipedia_stubs_across_
> languages
>
> Best,
> Leila
>
>
> Leila Zia
> Senior Research Scientist
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 2:50 PM, John Erling Blad 
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality assurance of articles

2017-04-17 Thread John Erling Blad
Definitly part of the overall quality. I wonder, do you have any stats om
how much positive change the previous attempts have triggered?

Den man. 17. apr. 2017, 02.04 skrev Leila Zia :

> Hi John,
>
> This may be of interest to you:
>
> We are working on building recommendation systems than can help editors
> identify how to expand already existing articles in Wikipedia. This
> includes but is not limited to identifying what sections are missing from
> an article, what citations, what images, infobox information, etc. This is
> research in its early days, if you'd like to follow up with it please visit
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Expanding_Wikipedia_stubs_across_languages
>
> Best,
> Leila
>
>
> Leila Zia
> Senior Research Scientist
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 2:50 PM, John Erling Blad 
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,