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 the
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 <jeb...@gmail.com> 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 <jeb...@gmail.com> 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,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
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,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
