Hoi,
Article review is important. The argument presented is that it needs action
in the light of fewer people involved in article review. The reality is
that at present only a subset of the articles are reviewed and only in a
few Wikipedias. In addition to this, these people all use fixed positions
and the reality of new editors is very much mobile.
Article review is text review first and foremost. With the influx of data
in Wikidata from many sources, review of facts is increasingly possible. A
first example is available in a tool that allows for the comparison of
dates of death. Arguably when Wikidata and its sources, including en,wp
cannot agree, it means that we have a problem that can be resolved. This
new tool exists thanks to the work in pywikipedia by Amir Ladsgroup.
My point is very much that the exclusive attention to the needs of single
projects will not help Wikipedia as a whole. Yes, it makes sense that
article review gets attention but arguing that it is only for the WMF to do
AND is to concentrate on existing practices will only lead to more
stagnation for the totality that is Wikipedia.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 5 October 2014 01:17, James Salsman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Re the request for discussion about the product roadmap during the
> metrics meeting at
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJGC9zpbJpU&t=1h06m30s
>
> Do Foundation officials intend to address supporting article accuracy
> review?
>
> I have asked several specific questions about
>
> https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Develop_systems_for_accuracy_review
> and I am certain that the proposal or something very similar is
> urgently needed for the transition from content creation to content
> maintenance on the largest projects. However at present there have
> been no response. Does the Foundation have an alternative contingency
> plan for article updating if active editors continue to decline? Or
> are all the eggs being put into the basket of hoping that someone
> thinks of something to reverse active editor decline, after at least a
> dozen such attempts have yielded zero results over the past half
> decade?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [email protected]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
