Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiProject Accuracy

2016-03-27 Thread James Salsman 
Hi Olatunde,

All the WikiProjects are individually responsible for accuracy, because of
Good Article criteria 2 and 3 taken together. However, I agree with your
sentiments.

Please see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Update_Watch (inactive)

https://mediawiki.org/wiki/Accuracy_review

http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/categorder.py?page=Category:All_articles_with_broken_or_outdated_citations
___
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

2016-03-27 Thread Andy Mabbett 
On 27 March 2016 at 09:59, Olatunde Isaac  wrote:

> I have read through series of comments by amazing members of the community 
> here and on talk pages. Some editors argued that constituting a "Project 
> Accuracy Editorial Review Board" is against the spirit of Wikipedia. This is 
> a fallacy! Review process is impeccable in every encyclopedia

You are conflating two things. No-one has said that there should be no
process of reviewing edits to Wikipedia.

> and normally Wikipedia articles are expected to pass through the review 
> process before they are visible on the main space.

That's bunkum. Please learn how Wikipedia works, before you attempt to "fix" it.

-- 
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

2016-03-27 Thread Gerard Meijssen 
Hoi,
Respectfully, you are wrong. But that is your right. It is exactly for
attitudes like this that I hardly ever edit Wikipedia.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 27 March 2016 at 10:59, Olatunde Isaac <reachout2is...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have read through series of comments by amazing members of the community
> here and on talk pages. Some editors argued that constituting a "Project
> Accuracy Editorial Review Board" is against the spirit of Wikipedia. This
> is a fallacy! Review process is impeccable in every encyclopedia and
> normally Wikipedia articles are expected to pass through the review process
> before they are visible on the main space. Improper review is why most
> Wikipedia articles contain inaccuracies such as errors, ideological biases,
> and nonsensical or irrelevant text. If there is a way this can be
> addressed, why not? Peer review have been funded in the past but as
> Wikipedia's popularity skyrocketed, revenues to fund the project stalled
> and Jimmy decided to discontinue funding for a salaried editor-in-chief in
> December 2001, partly as a result of the internet economy at that time, and
> his vision to established an openly editable encyclopedia. Thus, the idea
> of funding content creation, editing and editorial review was aborted in
> December 2001. Shortly after Jimmy stop paying Larry Sanger who was the
> editor-in-chief, he resigned and the Nupedia website at nupedia.com was
> shut down on September 26, 2003, barely 3 months after the [[Wikimedia
> Foundation]] was established. Since December 2001, it has become common
> practice for the WMF not to fund direct content creation, editing and peer
> review. This is a major problem with the idea of establishing "Wikiproject
> Accuracy" which rely on paying editorial board members to function.
> Wikimedia Foundation cannot fund projects where individuals will create
> content, edit or review article as that comes very close to paid editing.
> Instead, the foundation fund projects that engage or motivate groups of
> people in editing or adding content to Wikimedia projects, such as
> editathons, photo walks, or contests.
>
> However, if the appointed or elected members of the Editorial Review Board
> of the project accuracy are willing to serve voluntarily, without pay, I do
> not see anything wrong with that. Betty and her team of coordinators can
> start a pilot, and Wiki project medicine might be a good start, as Stephen
> Philbrick rightfully suggested, basically as a result of the importance and
> sensitivity of that subject matter and partly because of the strong
> initiatives of editors in that area. Wikiproject Accuracy seem like a level
> beyond FA. Thus I don’t think anyone would reasonably expects that all
> articles in the English Wikipedia will immediately or eventually become FA
> talk less of RAAFA. I'm silently saying that it is unreasonable to assume
> that all, or even any meaningfully significant proportion of all articles
> will reach the level of RAAFA. Thus, I don't see "WikiProject Accuracy"
> becoming a major problem. I think Betty Wills (User:Atsme) should go ahead
> with the pilot project while we keep our fingers crossed that everyhting
> will work out as planned. Let's see what will come out of this in the next
> few months.
>
> Best,
>
> Olatunde Isaac.
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Oliver Keyes <ironho...@gmail.com>
> Sender: "Wikimedia-l" <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org>Date: Fri,
> 25 Mar 2016 10:27:33
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List<wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiProject Accuracy
>
> Featured Article, Good Article and point of view, in sequence. Hope that
> helps.
>
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> 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 <
> stephen.w.philbr...@gmail.com>
> > 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiProject Accuracy

2016-03-25 Thread 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

2016-03-25 Thread 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] WikiProject Accuracy

2016-03-25 Thread 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

2016-03-25 Thread 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

2016-03-25 Thread 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

2016-03-25 Thread 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

2016-03-25 Thread 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

2016-03-25 Thread 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

2016-03-25 Thread 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" <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 11:18:10 
To: <reachout2is...@gmail.com>; 'Wikimedia Mailing 
List'<wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiProject Accuracy

2016-03-25 Thread 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

2016-03-25 Thread 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,