There is also the article I wrote for the 'Other Place' here
http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/05/04/the-sum-of-the-parts , also on the
subject of indiscriminate copying and pasting from older reference sources.
The point is that any study of Wikipedia article 'reliability' should be
careful
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:12 AM, geni geniice at gmail.com
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l wrote:
/ On 8 May 2014 01:00, Andreas Kolbe jayen466 at gmail.com
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l wrote:
//
// As for study design, I'd suggest you
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:08 AM, edward edw...@logicmuseum.com wrote:
While academic attitudes to Wikipedia may be of some interest they are
not a proxy for quality.
I don't understand this. I'm not saying I disagree, I just don't
understand. How would an attitude be a 'proxy' for quality?
Well personal bias is always potentially a problem. The Oxford study
tried to avoid this by 'blind' review. They changed the format of the
Britannica and the Wikipedia articles so it was not obvious which was
which. The problem with the study, however, was that they did not
realise one of the
phoebe ayers Wed May 7 23:22:07 UTC 2014
And those peer review systems have lots and lots of problems as well as upsides.
Nothing is perfect. The peer review system is definitely flawed. One flaw,
actually, is that it is hard to find good reviewers. Once it took a year and a
half. This is
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
In highly structured databases, adding properties that may be useful
for your research and the work of others would require altering the
structure itself, like adding a field, for example. That isn't easy,
because the powers
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Anthony Cole ahcole...@gmail.com wrote:
Regarding expert review, Doc James has just announced that a version of
Wikipedia's article Dengue fever has passed peer review and been accepted
for publication by the journal Open Medicine. I think this is a special
Can't we create a way that will simplify merge propsals into a simple
1-minute procedure? A template with:
Merger [Quercitrin] into [Quercitin], Motivation [bla bla bla] that would
automatically display the merge notice on all revelant pages?
Best regards,
Rui
--
_
Rui
On 08/05/2014 17:58, geni wrote:
So while it is unlikely that a published journal article would be a
complete hoax
This is because they have a robust review process, which Wikipedia
doesn't. Enough said.
Please robustly define glaring.
Glaring means obvious, in plain view, manifest etc. I
This sounds like a good job for the kind of setup used on Commons, for
instance, for deletion requests: a box (Javascript, I believe) shows up in
the middle of the screen, with a text entry field, maybe some check-boxes
(notify original creator, etc.) and then the script adds the appropriate
I would like to make a couple of contradictory points...
One, WMF and the editing communities should seek more, better *external*
reviews with some preference ... What we ourselves find and decide about
our content is less valuable than unbiased external reviews. That doesn't
mean external
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:13 AM, edward edw...@logicmuseum.com wrote:
On 08/05/2014 17:58, geni wrote:
So while it is unlikely that a published journal article would be a
complete hoax
This is because they have a robust review process, which Wikipedia
doesn't. Enough said.
Geni did say
By which I which I don't mean to say most literature is useless or a
fraud: it's not! But it's also not a 100% black or white picture. -- phoebe
The 'not perfect ' fallacy.
Peer reviewed literature is not perfect
Wikipedia is not perfect
Ergo, Wikipedia is equally good as peer reviewed
As Phoebe and (I think) Anne point out, there are many relevant aspects of
quality. Readability, pertinence, neutrality, concision and
comprehensiveness are all important factors but, when it comes to safety
and efficacy claims in our medical articles, for me they pale into
insignificance beside
On 8 May 2014 17:42, edward edw...@logicmuseum.com wrote:
Geni:
You seem to think its straightforward. If you think that you should be
able to propose a study design.
It is straightforward in my field. I have already studied most of the
Wikipedia articles in that area, and they all contain
On 8 May 2014 19:27, Anthony Cole ahcole...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with those above who highlight the flaws in the current scholarly
peer-review process. If enWikipedia is to embrace scholarly review (and we
should) we need to confront and address the well-known problems with peer
review in
Maybe the name of the thread should be changed, then.
,Wil
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 12:11 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 May 2014 17:42, edward edw...@logicmuseum.com wrote:
Geni:
You seem to think its straightforward. If you think that you should be
able to propose a study
-- Forwarded message --
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, May 8, 2014 at 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles
To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On 8 May 2014 19:27, Anthony Cole ahcole...@gmail.com
On 08/05/2014 20:11, David Gerard wrote:
Your area is philosophy, and an obscure area at that.
My specialism covers the intellectual history of Western Europe from 400
CE to 1400 CE roughly. In the history of logic, right up to the late
nineteenth century. If you remember, I wrote the first
On 8 May 2014 01:56, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
(However, this study does not seem to have been based on a random sample –
at least I cannot find any mention of the sample selection method in the
study's write-up. The selection of a random sample is key to any such
effort, and
I will just add that I agree [content] Quality is a strategic goal we have
made little systematic progress on (much progress was made in sheer
coverage, of course, e.g. via funding and support for content-centered
initiatives such as writing and photo competitions).
In the Grantmaking department,
On 08/05/2014 22:29, Andrew Gray wrote:
Section 3.3 of the report covers article selection. They went about it
backwards (at least, backwards to the way you might expect) -
recruiting reviewers and then manually identifying relevant articles,
as the original goal was to use relevant topics for
Hello,
I began to write a new thread about spam control, then remembered this
recent one on a similar topic.
Integrating spam control more deeply into all of our tools and
services - including particularly MediaWiki - is important for many
audiences.
Is there an overview of current anti-spam
Greetings, all:
Staff proposal assessments have been posted on Meta for three proposals that
were submitted in 2013-2014 Round 2. At the FDC's request, FDC staff have
not published an assessment for the WMF proposal; however, an assessment of
the WMF proposal has been published by WMDE.
The
Samuel Klein wrote:
Integrating spam control more deeply into all of our tools and
services - including particularly MediaWiki - is important for many
audiences.
Many MediaWiki system administrators complain about the levels of spam
that their small wikis receive. Any help in this area would
Hi all -
This is a slightly unusual email for me, in that I'm wearing more hats than
I usually do. I'm writing as a community member, but also as someone
currently employed by one of the best public universities in the world in a
department that is, at least in decent part, aimed at ensuring that
Have you discussed this on commons, or just trying to bypass them?
On Friday, May 9, 2014, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all -
This is a slightly unusual email for me, in that I'm wearing more hats than
I usually do. I'm writing as a community member, but also as someone
There are multiple comments on Common's mainpage talk about this, as well
as one at their administrator's noticeboard. As I mentioned in my first
post, since Commons is a project that by its nature effects all other
projects, I don't think discussion of this issue should be limited to those
who
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote:
Can anyone articulate a valid reason why the freezeframe from the video
posted on the frontpage was just about the most graphic still possible from
the video?
Presumably the person who set up the templates thought that
Maybe a simple solution to this is just having more process for which still
frame to use for any MOTD video.
Thanks,
Richard
(User:Pharos)
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 12:00 AM, Benjamin Lees emufarm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote:
Can
30 matches
Mail list logo
