Textual and factual quality are different. Often we spellcheck an article and claim it to be of good quality, but I believe that is the lesser problem although it is part of the overall quality.
Advertising
Den søn. 16. apr. 2017, 18.59 skrev Ziko van Dijk <zvand...@gmail.com>: > Hello John, > > Article quality is an interesting subject. I guess that it depends > extremely on what is the scientific discipline you come from, and what > questions you want to be answered. A linguist will have a very different > approach than a computer scientist, for example. If you ask me, only a > human being can judge an article if it comes to content quality and textual > quality, by the way. Maybe you want to elaborate on what are your > questions? > > Kind regards > Ziko > > > > > > 2017-04-16 9:44 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>: > > > 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> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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>
