Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] The Revision Scoring weekly update

2017-03-17 Thread Gerard Meijssen 
Hoi,
I so agree but when it is quality that is to be achieved let it be a
guidance that helps us to achieve quality.

Wikidata should bring things together. I do not aim to achieve the quality
as described because it fails in achieving things that are actionable and
have a measurable effect on the quality of Wikidat as being complimentary
to Wikipedia.

Arguably the quality that Wikidata brings is not realised because of
Wikidata items are considered in the same way as articles. They are not.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 17 March 2017 at 13:06, Richard Nevell 
wrote:

> Having guidance on quality helps people learning about Wikidata understand
> what they should be aiming for.
>
> The paper on vandalism detection in Wikidata sounds interesting, where can
> I find it?
>
> Richard
>
> On 17 March 2017 at 09:09, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > I noticed the notion about "quality in Wikidata". The approach is very
> much
> > in line with what is the norm in Wikipedia. This is inot the right
> approach
> > for Wikidata. Many of the items in Wikidata can be of high "quality"; ie
> > the statements have a source and there are enough labels but the true
> value
> > of these items are in the use of these items as statements in other
> items..
> > (for instance a university indicates that someone studied there).
> Another
> > quality point is that for authors a VIAF statements allows for the
> linking
> > in Wikipedias in external sources. This is of a high importance, it makes
> > Wikidata useful and, if that is not of a quality consideration what is?
> >
> > One other aspect of Wikidata is that it is still highly immature. Just
> > consider the statistics for labels and statements [1] . This is only the
> > first month where less than 10% of our items have no statement.. We talk
> > about quality but quality should have a practical meaning. Just saying
> this
> > or that item is so good, it makes for stamp collecting. The point of a
> > stamp is not to collect them it is to send mail. Quality means that we
> know
> > how many articles have been written in one or more editathons. It is in
> > finding for a collection of items that it is better known what award,
> > schooling has been achieved by the people that was written for. It is in
> > using Wikidata to indicate what categories could be in what Wikipedia
> > article.
> >
> > Quality needs to be actionable. What is the use of static quality?
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> >
> > [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php?reverse
> >
> > On 17 March 2017 at 02:19, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > > Sharing some good news, both about the progress of ORES and (my primary
> > > inspiration for sharing this email) significant improvements in article
> > > quality thanks to WikiProject Women scientists. The latter has been
> > > designated as the Keilana Effect.
> > >
> > > Pine
> > >
> > >
> > > -- Forwarded message --
> > > From: Aaron Halfaker 
> > > Date: Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:14 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] The Revision Scoring weekly update
> > > To: Application of Artificial Intelligence and other advanced computing
> > > strategies to Wikimedia Projects 
> > > Cc: wikitech-l 
> > >
> > >
> > > Hey folks!
> > >
> > > I should really stop calling this a weekly update because it's getting
> a
> > > bit silly at this point.  :)   But if it were a weekly update, it would
> > > cover the weeks of 42 - 46.
> > >
> > > *Highlights:*
> > >
> > >- 3 new models: Finnish Wikipedia (reverted) and Estonian Wikipedia
> > >(damaging & goodfaith)
> > >
> > >
> > >- We estimated and agreed on funding for ORES servers in the next
> year
> > >with Operations
> > >
> > >
> > >- We published a paper about vandalism detection in Wikidata and a
> > blog
> > >post about the massive effect of some initiatives on coverage of
> Women
> > >Scientists in Wikipedia.
> > >
> > >
> > > *New development:*
> > >
> > >- We added recall-based threshold metrics to the new draftquality
> > model
> > >which should help tool devs know what which new page creations to
> > > highlight
> > >for review[1]
> > >
> > >
> > >- We added optional notices for ORES pages which will help us
> visually
> > >distinguish our experimental install in WMFlabs from the Prod
> install
> > (
> > >ores.wikimedia.org)[2]
> > >
> > >
> > >- We added basic language support for Finish (Thanks 4shadoww)[3]
> and
> > >deployed a 'reverted' model[4]
> > >
> > >
> > >- We lead a discussion in Wikidata about "item quality" that
> resulted
> > in
> > >a Wikipedia 1.0 like scale for Wikidata quality[5,6] and designed a
> > >Wikilabels form to capture the gist of it[7]
> > >
> > >
> > >- We enabled the ORES Review Tool on Czech Wikipedia[8]
> > >
> > >
> > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] The Revision Scoring weekly update

2017-03-17 Thread Amir Ladsgroup 
Hey,
It's in arxiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.03861
Any feedback is welcome :)

Best

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 3:37 PM Richard Nevell <
richard.nev...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:

> Having guidance on quality helps people learning about Wikidata understand
> what they should be aiming for.
>
> The paper on vandalism detection in Wikidata sounds interesting, where can
> I find it?
>
> Richard
>
> On 17 March 2017 at 09:09, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > I noticed the notion about "quality in Wikidata". The approach is very
> much
> > in line with what is the norm in Wikipedia. This is inot the right
> approach
> > for Wikidata. Many of the items in Wikidata can be of high "quality"; ie
> > the statements have a source and there are enough labels but the true
> value
> > of these items are in the use of these items as statements in other
> items..
> > (for instance a university indicates that someone studied there).
> Another
> > quality point is that for authors a VIAF statements allows for the
> linking
> > in Wikipedias in external sources. This is of a high importance, it makes
> > Wikidata useful and, if that is not of a quality consideration what is?
> >
> > One other aspect of Wikidata is that it is still highly immature. Just
> > consider the statistics for labels and statements [1] . This is only the
> > first month where less than 10% of our items have no statement.. We talk
> > about quality but quality should have a practical meaning. Just saying
> this
> > or that item is so good, it makes for stamp collecting. The point of a
> > stamp is not to collect them it is to send mail. Quality means that we
> know
> > how many articles have been written in one or more editathons. It is in
> > finding for a collection of items that it is better known what award,
> > schooling has been achieved by the people that was written for. It is in
> > using Wikidata to indicate what categories could be in what Wikipedia
> > article.
> >
> > Quality needs to be actionable. What is the use of static quality?
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> >
> > [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php?reverse
> >
> > On 17 March 2017 at 02:19, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > > Sharing some good news, both about the progress of ORES and (my primary
> > > inspiration for sharing this email) significant improvements in article
> > > quality thanks to WikiProject Women scientists. The latter has been
> > > designated as the Keilana Effect.
> > >
> > > Pine
> > >
> > >
> > > -- Forwarded message --
> > > From: Aaron Halfaker 
> > > Date: Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:14 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] The Revision Scoring weekly update
> > > To: Application of Artificial Intelligence and other advanced computing
> > > strategies to Wikimedia Projects 
> > > Cc: wikitech-l 
> > >
> > >
> > > Hey folks!
> > >
> > > I should really stop calling this a weekly update because it's getting
> a
> > > bit silly at this point.  :)   But if it were a weekly update, it would
> > > cover the weeks of 42 - 46.
> > >
> > > *Highlights:*
> > >
> > >- 3 new models: Finnish Wikipedia (reverted) and Estonian Wikipedia
> > >(damaging & goodfaith)
> > >
> > >
> > >- We estimated and agreed on funding for ORES servers in the next
> year
> > >with Operations
> > >
> > >
> > >- We published a paper about vandalism detection in Wikidata and a
> > blog
> > >post about the massive effect of some initiatives on coverage of
> Women
> > >Scientists in Wikipedia.
> > >
> > >
> > > *New development:*
> > >
> > >- We added recall-based threshold metrics to the new draftquality
> > model
> > >which should help tool devs know what which new page creations to
> > > highlight
> > >for review[1]
> > >
> > >
> > >- We added optional notices for ORES pages which will help us
> visually
> > >distinguish our experimental install in WMFlabs from the Prod
> install
> > (
> > >ores.wikimedia.org)[2]
> > >
> > >
> > >- We added basic language support for Finish (Thanks 4shadoww)[3]
> and
> > >deployed a 'reverted' model[4]
> > >
> > >
> > >- We lead a discussion in Wikidata about "item quality" that
> resulted
> > in
> > >a Wikipedia 1.0 like scale for Wikidata quality[5,6] and designed a
> > >Wikilabels form to capture the gist of it[7]
> > >
> > >
> > >- We enabled the ORES Review Tool on Czech Wikipedia[8]
> > >
> > >
> > >- We configured ChangeProp to use our new minified JSON output to
> save
> > >bandwidth[9]
> > >
> > >
> > >- We extended the Estonian language assets (Thanks Cumbril)[10] and
> > >deployed the 'damaging' and 'goodfaith' models[11,12]
> > >
> > >
> > >- We enabled a testing model for 'goodfaith' on the Beta Cluster to
> > make
> > >it easier for the Collaboration team to run tests with their new
> >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] The Revision Scoring weekly update

2017-03-17 Thread Richard Nevell 
Having guidance on quality helps people learning about Wikidata understand
what they should be aiming for.

The paper on vandalism detection in Wikidata sounds interesting, where can
I find it?

Richard

On 17 March 2017 at 09:09, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> I noticed the notion about "quality in Wikidata". The approach is very much
> in line with what is the norm in Wikipedia. This is inot the right approach
> for Wikidata. Many of the items in Wikidata can be of high "quality"; ie
> the statements have a source and there are enough labels but the true value
> of these items are in the use of these items as statements in other items..
> (for instance a university indicates that someone studied there).  Another
> quality point is that for authors a VIAF statements allows for the linking
> in Wikipedias in external sources. This is of a high importance, it makes
> Wikidata useful and, if that is not of a quality consideration what is?
>
> One other aspect of Wikidata is that it is still highly immature. Just
> consider the statistics for labels and statements [1] . This is only the
> first month where less than 10% of our items have no statement.. We talk
> about quality but quality should have a practical meaning. Just saying this
> or that item is so good, it makes for stamp collecting. The point of a
> stamp is not to collect them it is to send mail. Quality means that we know
> how many articles have been written in one or more editathons. It is in
> finding for a collection of items that it is better known what award,
> schooling has been achieved by the people that was written for. It is in
> using Wikidata to indicate what categories could be in what Wikipedia
> article.
>
> Quality needs to be actionable. What is the use of static quality?
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
>
> [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php?reverse
>
> On 17 March 2017 at 02:19, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Sharing some good news, both about the progress of ORES and (my primary
> > inspiration for sharing this email) significant improvements in article
> > quality thanks to WikiProject Women scientists. The latter has been
> > designated as the Keilana Effect.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> >
> > -- Forwarded message --
> > From: Aaron Halfaker 
> > Date: Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:14 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] The Revision Scoring weekly update
> > To: Application of Artificial Intelligence and other advanced computing
> > strategies to Wikimedia Projects 
> > Cc: wikitech-l 
> >
> >
> > Hey folks!
> >
> > I should really stop calling this a weekly update because it's getting a
> > bit silly at this point.  :)   But if it were a weekly update, it would
> > cover the weeks of 42 - 46.
> >
> > *Highlights:*
> >
> >- 3 new models: Finnish Wikipedia (reverted) and Estonian Wikipedia
> >(damaging & goodfaith)
> >
> >
> >- We estimated and agreed on funding for ORES servers in the next year
> >with Operations
> >
> >
> >- We published a paper about vandalism detection in Wikidata and a
> blog
> >post about the massive effect of some initiatives on coverage of Women
> >Scientists in Wikipedia.
> >
> >
> > *New development:*
> >
> >- We added recall-based threshold metrics to the new draftquality
> model
> >which should help tool devs know what which new page creations to
> > highlight
> >for review[1]
> >
> >
> >- We added optional notices for ORES pages which will help us visually
> >distinguish our experimental install in WMFlabs from the Prod install
> (
> >ores.wikimedia.org)[2]
> >
> >
> >- We added basic language support for Finish (Thanks 4shadoww)[3] and
> >deployed a 'reverted' model[4]
> >
> >
> >- We lead a discussion in Wikidata about "item quality" that resulted
> in
> >a Wikipedia 1.0 like scale for Wikidata quality[5,6] and designed a
> >Wikilabels form to capture the gist of it[7]
> >
> >
> >- We enabled the ORES Review Tool on Czech Wikipedia[8]
> >
> >
> >- We configured ChangeProp to use our new minified JSON output to save
> >bandwidth[9]
> >
> >
> >- We extended the Estonian language assets (Thanks Cumbril)[10] and
> >deployed the 'damaging' and 'goodfaith' models[11,12]
> >
> >
> >- We enabled a testing model for 'goodfaith' on the Beta Cluster to
> make
> >it easier for the Collaboration team to run tests with their new
> filter
> >interface[13]
> >
> >
> >- We created a new "precache" endpoint that will allow us to
> >de-duplicate configuration with ChangeProp and handle all routing in
> > ORES
> >locally[14]
> >
> >
> > *Resourcing:*
> >
> >- We completed a 2 year estimate of ORES resource needs and discussed
> >funding (capital expendature) for ORES in the coming fiscal year[15].
> > This
> >will allow us to continue to grow ORES both

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] The Revision Scoring weekly update

2017-03-17 Thread Gerard Meijssen 
Hoi,
I noticed the notion about "quality in Wikidata". The approach is very much
in line with what is the norm in Wikipedia. This is inot the right approach
for Wikidata. Many of the items in Wikidata can be of high "quality"; ie
the statements have a source and there are enough labels but the true value
of these items are in the use of these items as statements in other items..
(for instance a university indicates that someone studied there).  Another
quality point is that for authors a VIAF statements allows for the linking
in Wikipedias in external sources. This is of a high importance, it makes
Wikidata useful and, if that is not of a quality consideration what is?

One other aspect of Wikidata is that it is still highly immature. Just
consider the statistics for labels and statements [1] . This is only the
first month where less than 10% of our items have no statement.. We talk
about quality but quality should have a practical meaning. Just saying this
or that item is so good, it makes for stamp collecting. The point of a
stamp is not to collect them it is to send mail. Quality means that we know
how many articles have been written in one or more editathons. It is in
finding for a collection of items that it is better known what award,
schooling has been achieved by the people that was written for. It is in
using Wikidata to indicate what categories could be in what Wikipedia
article.

Quality needs to be actionable. What is the use of static quality?
Thanks,
  GerardM


[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php?reverse

On 17 March 2017 at 02:19, Pine W  wrote:

> Sharing some good news, both about the progress of ORES and (my primary
> inspiration for sharing this email) significant improvements in article
> quality thanks to WikiProject Women scientists. The latter has been
> designated as the Keilana Effect.
>
> Pine
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Aaron Halfaker 
> Date: Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] The Revision Scoring weekly update
> To: Application of Artificial Intelligence and other advanced computing
> strategies to Wikimedia Projects 
> Cc: wikitech-l 
>
>
> Hey folks!
>
> I should really stop calling this a weekly update because it's getting a
> bit silly at this point.  :)   But if it were a weekly update, it would
> cover the weeks of 42 - 46.
>
> *Highlights:*
>
>- 3 new models: Finnish Wikipedia (reverted) and Estonian Wikipedia
>(damaging & goodfaith)
>
>
>- We estimated and agreed on funding for ORES servers in the next year
>with Operations
>
>
>- We published a paper about vandalism detection in Wikidata and a blog
>post about the massive effect of some initiatives on coverage of Women
>Scientists in Wikipedia.
>
>
> *New development:*
>
>- We added recall-based threshold metrics to the new draftquality model
>which should help tool devs know what which new page creations to
> highlight
>for review[1]
>
>
>- We added optional notices for ORES pages which will help us visually
>distinguish our experimental install in WMFlabs from the Prod install (
>ores.wikimedia.org)[2]
>
>
>- We added basic language support for Finish (Thanks 4shadoww)[3] and
>deployed a 'reverted' model[4]
>
>
>- We lead a discussion in Wikidata about "item quality" that resulted in
>a Wikipedia 1.0 like scale for Wikidata quality[5,6] and designed a
>Wikilabels form to capture the gist of it[7]
>
>
>- We enabled the ORES Review Tool on Czech Wikipedia[8]
>
>
>- We configured ChangeProp to use our new minified JSON output to save
>bandwidth[9]
>
>
>- We extended the Estonian language assets (Thanks Cumbril)[10] and
>deployed the 'damaging' and 'goodfaith' models[11,12]
>
>
>- We enabled a testing model for 'goodfaith' on the Beta Cluster to make
>it easier for the Collaboration team to run tests with their new filter
>interface[13]
>
>
>- We created a new "precache" endpoint that will allow us to
>de-duplicate configuration with ChangeProp and handle all routing in
> ORES
>locally[14]
>
>
> *Resourcing:*
>
>- We completed a 2 year estimate of ORES resource needs and discussed
>funding (capital expendature) for ORES in the coming fiscal year[15].
> This
>will allow us to continue to grow ORES both in number of models and in
>scoring capacity.
>
>
> *Communications:*
>
>- Amir improved the KDD paper based on review feedback[16] and got it
>published[17]
>
>
>- We published a blob post about our measurements of WikiProject Women
>Scientists[18,19] -- "The Keilana Effect"
>
>
>- Thanks to Cumbril's work, the Estonian labeling campaing was
>finished[20]
>
>
> *Deployments:*
>
>- In early February, we deployed a new set of translations to Wikilabels
>(specifcally targeting Romanian

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] The Revision Scoring weekly update

2017-03-16 Thread Pine W 
Sharing some good news, both about the progress of ORES and (my primary
inspiration for sharing this email) significant improvements in article
quality thanks to WikiProject Women scientists. The latter has been
designated as the Keilana Effect.

Pine


-- Forwarded message --
From: Aaron Halfaker 
Date: Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] The Revision Scoring weekly update
To: Application of Artificial Intelligence and other advanced computing
strategies to Wikimedia Projects 
Cc: wikitech-l 


Hey folks!

I should really stop calling this a weekly update because it's getting a
bit silly at this point.  :)   But if it were a weekly update, it would
cover the weeks of 42 - 46.

*Highlights:*

   - 3 new models: Finnish Wikipedia (reverted) and Estonian Wikipedia
   (damaging & goodfaith)


   - We estimated and agreed on funding for ORES servers in the next year
   with Operations


   - We published a paper about vandalism detection in Wikidata and a blog
   post about the massive effect of some initiatives on coverage of Women
   Scientists in Wikipedia.


*New development:*

   - We added recall-based threshold metrics to the new draftquality model
   which should help tool devs know what which new page creations to
highlight
   for review[1]


   - We added optional notices for ORES pages which will help us visually
   distinguish our experimental install in WMFlabs from the Prod install (
   ores.wikimedia.org)[2]


   - We added basic language support for Finish (Thanks 4shadoww)[3] and
   deployed a 'reverted' model[4]


   - We lead a discussion in Wikidata about "item quality" that resulted in
   a Wikipedia 1.0 like scale for Wikidata quality[5,6] and designed a
   Wikilabels form to capture the gist of it[7]


   - We enabled the ORES Review Tool on Czech Wikipedia[8]


   - We configured ChangeProp to use our new minified JSON output to save
   bandwidth[9]


   - We extended the Estonian language assets (Thanks Cumbril)[10] and
   deployed the 'damaging' and 'goodfaith' models[11,12]


   - We enabled a testing model for 'goodfaith' on the Beta Cluster to make
   it easier for the Collaboration team to run tests with their new filter
   interface[13]


   - We created a new "precache" endpoint that will allow us to
   de-duplicate configuration with ChangeProp and handle all routing in ORES
   locally[14]


*Resourcing:*

   - We completed a 2 year estimate of ORES resource needs and discussed
   funding (capital expendature) for ORES in the coming fiscal year[15].
This
   will allow us to continue to grow ORES both in number of models and in
   scoring capacity.


*Communications:*

   - Amir improved the KDD paper based on review feedback[16] and got it
   published[17]


   - We published a blob post about our measurements of WikiProject Women
   Scientists[18,19] -- "The Keilana Effect"


   - Thanks to Cumbril's work, the Estonian labeling campaing was
   finished[20]


*Deployments:*

   - In early February, we deployed a new set of translations to Wikilabels
   (specifcally targeting Romanian Wikipedia)[21]


   - In mid-February, we deployed some fixes to ORES documentation and
   response formatting[22]


   - In mid-March, we deployed 3 new scoring models and ORES notices[23]


*Maintenance and robustness:*

   - We fixed a serious issue in the "mwoauth" library that Wikilabels
   depends on[24]


   - We reduced the number of revisions per request that we could receive
   via api.php[25]


   - We investigated a scap issue that broke ORES deployment[26]


   - We fixed a minor issue with JSON minification behavior[27] and
   hard-coding of the location of ORES in the documentation[28]


   - We improved performance of ORES filters on MediaWiki[29]


   - We improved the language describing ORES behavior on
   Special:Contributions[30]


   - We added a notice to the Wikipages that Dexbot maintains about its
   behavior[31]


   - We added notices to ores.wmflabs.org about it's experimental nature[32]


   - We fixed some issues with testing Finnish language assets[33]


   - We fixed some styling issues that resulted from an upgrade of OOJS
   UI[34]


1. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T157454 -- Add recall based thresholds
to draftquality model
2. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T150962 -- Add an optional notice to
ORES main and ui pages
3. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T158587 -- Add language support for
Finnish
4. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T160228 -- Train/test reverted model
for fiwiki
5. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T157489 -- [Discuss] item quality in
Wikidata
6. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Item_quality
7. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T155828 -- Design item_quality form
for Wikidata
8. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T151611 -- Enable ORES Review Tool on
Czech Wikipedia
9. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T157693 --