I wrote a proposal a few years ago on how we could identfy some types of bias. The idea was to compare ranking of pageviews, and notify other projects about missing articles. I don't think anyone has done any followup om that
Den søn. 16. apr. 2017, 19.12 skrev Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>: > Hoi, > Humans are overrated. I saw this answer on Facebook [1] and [2] compare the > two and tell me why we accept the bias in our editors. Why are we satisfied > with what we write about when there is more to inform about. Remember what > we aim to achieve. It does not say text, it says share the sum of all > knowledge. > Thanks, > GerardM > > [1] > > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Geotagged_articles_in_enWP_map_RENDER_small.png > [2] > > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/WorldmapGeonamesallCountries.jpg > > On 16 April 2017 at 18:59, Ziko van Dijk <zvand...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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> _______________________________________________ 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>
