Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

Hoi, When you consider that many if not most US mayors of a city with over 25.000 inhabitants of the 19th century have a Wikipedia article, it is relevant to notice that most South African members of the National Assemblee do not have an article [1]. When you consider that English is a major langu

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

Thanks Anne. Anthony Cole On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Risker wrote: > In answer to the question of the WMF funding research: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:FAQ > > Risker/Anne > > > On 8 May 2014 01:13, Anthony Cole wrote:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

For sv:wp we only look at quality and reliability (and coverage) only for specific subjects areas. I am very skeptical of the value of a general study as we already know we are awfully weak in many areas, like geographic entities in African countries. Some examples of our findings *Swedish adm

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

In answer to the question of the WMF funding research: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:FAQ Risker/Anne On 8 May 2014 01:13, Anthony Cole wrote: > Wow. > > Wil - you're going to love WikiData. > > Phoebe: I have seen that list of peer-reviewed articles related to > Wikipedia medical c

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

Wow. Wil - you're going to love WikiData. Phoebe: I have seen that list of peer-reviewed articles related to Wikipedia medical content. I've extracted those related to quality and added more from a couple of database searches I did in January and the list of 42 (some are letters and there's a co

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 3:41 AM, Risker wrote: > Yes, of course readability analysis is done by automation. I've yet to > find a consistent readability assessment that doesn't use automation. It's > not an area where subjectivity is particularly useful. > > And that was an average of 18 minutes

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

On 7 May 2014 22:24, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Risker wrote: > > > > > > I think perhaps there is a lack of research into the extent of research > > already being done by independent, qualified third parties. Several > > examples are provided in the references of th

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Risker wrote: > > > I think perhaps there is a lack of research into the extent of research > already being done by independent, qualified third parties. Several > examples are provided in the references of the study you posted, Andreas. > For example, this one in

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote: > > > I imagine this isn't the first time someone has thrown something like > this in to the Wikipedosphere. If so, what did people think? If not, > what do you guys think? :) > > ,Wil > > I think it sounds a little bit like wikidata.org, with s

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

Would it be possible for WMF or another organization to initiate and potentially fund a project modeled on the Human Genome Project? That is, WMF or some other institution could host a large database of data that researchers can contribute to and that makes all the data available for researchers to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

On 7 May 2014 20:56, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Nathan wrote: > > > On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote: > > > > > I'm a total newb here, and I know the grant system between WMF and the > > > different chapters has been debated in the past. But I have

[Wikimedia-l] Amical Wikimedia Report, April 2014

Dear fellows, The following message is just to keep you informed about the activities developed in April by Amical Wikimedia. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Amical_Wikimedia/April_2014 Kind regards, David Parreño Mont User:Davidpar Communications, Amical Wikimedia *Source:* https://meta

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Nathan wrote: > On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote: > > > I'm a total newb here, and I know the grant system between WMF and the > > different chapters has been debated in the past. But I have a simple > > question: if WMF is funding these efforts

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote: > I looked at WMF's grant page here: > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants. I don't see any mention of > grants for academic research. Does the WMF give such grants? If not, > why not? > > ,Wil https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/The

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

I looked at WMF's grant page here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants. I don't see any mention of grants for academic research. Does the WMF give such grants? If not, why not? ,Wil On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 1:06 AM, Thyge wrote: > >> Maybe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote: > I'm a total newb here, and I know the grant system between WMF and the > different chapters has been debated in the past. But I have a simple > question: if WMF is funding these efforts through grants and the grant > money is used to review an

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

I'm a total newb here, and I know the grant system between WMF and the different chapters has been debated in the past. But I have a simple question: if WMF is funding these efforts through grants and the grant money is used to review and/or manage content, wouldn't it be indirectly getting involve

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > > > Well, I'd like the Foundation to invest in such research, which is why I > brought it up here. > > I cant think of several instances of donors' money being spent on things > that to me seemed less supportive of the Foundation's core miss

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 1:06 AM, Thyge wrote: > Maybe you should suggest that to the universities and not just to this > mailing list. > Nothing prevents to set up " an independent panel of academic experts" and > to start doing that job today. > regards, > Thyge > Well, I'd like the Foundation

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

Maybe you should suggest that to the universities and not just to this mailing list. Nothing prevents to set up " an independent panel of academic experts" and to start doing that job today. regards, Thyge 2014-05-08 2:00 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe : > On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Thyge wrote

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

On 7 May 2014 19:38, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 12:22 AM, phoebe ayers > wrote: > > > On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Andreas Kolbe > wrote: > > > > > Anne, there are really well-established systems of scholarly peer > review. > > > There is no need to reinvent the wheel, or

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Thyge wrote: > mr Andreas Kolbe, > I would like to tell you, that your mailings here strike me as being > negative and unhelpful. > :) > If you have any suggestions for improvement, please put them forward, since > this is an interesting topic. > The "undiscipl

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

mr Andreas Kolbe, I would like to tell you, that your mailings here strike me as being negative and unhelpful. If you have any suggestions for improvement, please put them forward, since this is an interesting topic. The "undisciplined crowd of random people" is what the world comprises, and a subs

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 12:22 AM, phoebe ayers wrote: > On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > > Anne, there are really well-established systems of scholarly peer review. > > There is no need to reinvent the wheel, or add distractions such as > > infoboxes and other bells and wh

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Anne, there are really well-established systems of scholarly peer review. > There is no need to reinvent the wheel, or add distractions such as > infoboxes and other bells and whistles. And those peer review systems have lots and lots of pr

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 4:12 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: > The research group at the WMF to the best of my knowledge hasn't run any > reliability-of-articles studies itself, but there have been lots done by > domain experts in various fields. We commissioned one: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resear

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Anthony Cole wrote: > Could someone please point me to all the studies the WMF have conducted > into the reliability of Wikipedia's content? I'm particularly interested in > the medical content, but would also like to look over the others too. > Cheers. > > Anthony

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Risker wrote: > Ah, but the costliest conditions aren't actually comparable to the relevant > Wikipedia articles. For example, the "costly condition" of cancer is > compared to the article on lung cancer, despite the fact that we have an > article on cancer. The

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

It does have to be scalable if you want to be able to measure any article, at least approximately. Let's say I am interested in 5000 articles on the subjects X, Y and Z, none of which have been manually rated, and never will be due to the scaling problem. An automated tool would be extremely us

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

On 7 May 2014 18:30, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > "In a blinded process, we randomly selected 10 reviewers to examine 2 of > the selected Wikipedia articles. Each reviewer was an internal medicine > resident or rotating intern at the time of the assignment. This arrangement > created redundancy, giving

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Michael Maggs wrote: > Measuring the quality of Wikipedia articles in general is an issue that > Wikimedia UK is interested in looking at, though by means of automation > rather than the gold-standard but much less scalable method of scholarly > peer review. > I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

Junk science? I suppose the Article Feedback Tool was more scientific, then, because that's the best the Foundation has come up with so far. On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:27 PM, Risker wrote: > On 7 May 2014 18:14, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > > Anne, there are really well-established systems of schol

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

Measuring the quality of Wikipedia articles in general is an issue that Wikimedia UK is interested in looking at, though by means of automation rather than the gold-standard but much less scalable method of scholarly peer review. Our early-stage plans for a large-scale IT project to provide auto

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

"In a blinded process, we randomly selected 10 reviewers to examine 2 of the selected Wikipedia articles. Each reviewer was an internal medicine resident or rotating intern at the time of the assignment. This arrangement created redundancy, giving the study 2 independent reviewers for each article.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 6:19 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 7 May 2014 23:14, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > > For what it's worth, there was a recent external study of Wikipedia's > > medical content that came to unflattering results: > > http://www.jaoa.org/content/114/5/368.full > > > Osteopaths. > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

On 7 May 2014 18:14, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Anne, there are really well-established systems of scholarly peer review. > There is no need to reinvent the wheel, or add distractions such as > infoboxes and other bells and whistles. > > I find it extraordinary that, after 13 years, a project designe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

On 7 May 2014 23:14, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > For what it's worth, there was a recent external study of Wikipedia's > medical content that came to unflattering results: > http://www.jaoa.org/content/114/5/368.full Osteopaths. Perhaps we could ask the chiropractors and homeopaths what they think

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

Anne, there are really well-established systems of scholarly peer review. There is no need to reinvent the wheel, or add distractions such as infoboxes and other bells and whistles. I find it extraordinary that, after 13 years, a project designed to make the sum of human knowledge available to hum

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

On 7 May 2014 16:17, Anthony Cole wrote: > Could someone please point me to all the studies the WMF have conducted > into the reliability of Wikipedia's content? I'm particularly interested in > the medical content, but would also like to look over the others too. > Cheers. > > Anthony Cole

[Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

Could someone please point me to all the studies the WMF have conducted into the reliability of Wikipedia's content? I'm particularly interested in the medical content, but would also like to look over the others too. Cheers. Anthony Cole _

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cracking Wikipedia

I have been quite succesful in getting media relicenced for our projects. My first major success was the Kremlin[1], and in my letter to them[2] I made it very clear that media in articles would help to better articulate and present the points of view that should be present in relevant articles. To

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding

Pine, I have another question to add to the initial question: Will the Foundation prohibit chapters and other thematic organizations from the "creation of paid roles that have article writing as a core focus, regardless of who is initiating or managing the process" as a condition of receiving WMF f