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.

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>

Reply via email to