Risker wrote: >... it received a single "support" vote
There are two supporters including myself who indicated they are willing to work on it, and it also recieved support at https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Favorites/Lodewijk Many of the implemented proposals received less formal process support, for example: https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Foundation-Announce-l https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Create_Wikisource_for_Yiddish https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Allow_IPs_to_edit_sections_on_English_Wikipedia_(done) https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Implement_secret_ballots_(Done) https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:IPhone/iPod_Touch_Offical_Wikipedia_App_(Done) https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Mobiltelefonversion_von_Wikipedia_(Done) ... and at least four more just that I have looked through so far. Moreover, according to the vote scoring system, I believe it ranked in the top 8% out of several hundred proposals, although that information is apparently no longer available. >... there's no basis to believe that this ... will actually identify > inaccuracies in the text Do you believe that if you find an article about a geographic region with the words "population 1,234,567" or "gross national product" within the same grammatical clause as a number, and you know that text was inserted 10 years ago, that you have not found a likely out-of-date inaccuracy? What reason could there possibly be to believe otherwise? >... It would require tens of thousands of person-hours (if not more) to > analyse the data, and not a single article would be improved. On the contrary, we can try it on 100 randomly selected vital articles, and if we don't have enough data to make an extrapolation with useful confidence intervals, we can try it on a slightly larger sample of them. This is something the GSoC students can do themselves, without and volunteer support. But what reason is there to believe that such support won't be forthcoming if requested from the copyeditor's guild or similar wikiproject, for example? >... Your proposal requires massive time commitment from reviewers Why would it require any more time commitment than the existing 17,200 articles in [[Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification]]? Where is the requirement? Volunteer editors are free to spend their time in the manner which they believe will best serve improvements. >... it doesn't even fix out-of-date information. Do you think actual fact checking should be done by people or bots? >... There is no indication at all that there is any interest on the part > of Wikipedians to review data identified in the manner you propose. Most of the WP:BACKLOG categories have articles entering and exiting them every day. What reason is to believe that articles selected by an automated accuracy review process would be any different? >... there's no basis to believe that this project would have any > effect on accuracy Even if you had airtight evidence that was incontrovertibly true (and for the reasons above, there can obviously be no such evidence) wouldn't it still be the case that there would only be one way to find out? Best regards, James Salsman On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:58 AM, James Salsman <jsals...@gmail.com> wrote: > Risker wrote: >> >>... relying on suggestions from a six-year-old strategy document >> when we're about to start a new strategic session, isn't the best >> course of action. > > A strategy proposal which never garnered criticism after so many > opportunities would seem to qualify as at least an emergent strategy > within the meaning of the slide and narrative at > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4Kvj5vCaW0&t=19m30s > > Furthermore, the initial limited subtask would be much more difficult > to evaluate as a strategy without a working prototype, including by > the Bot Approvals Group which demands working code before making a > final decision on implementation. Trying to second guess the BAG is > presumptuous. > > Is it possible that supporting updates to out of date articles would > not be part of any successful strategy for the Foundation? I have > posted multiple series of statistics to wiki-research-l in the past > several months proving that quality issues are transitioning from > creating new content to maintaining old content, and will be happy to > recapitulate them should anyone suggest that they think it could be. > >> what exactly is the plan for doing something with this information. > > It will be made available to volunteers as a backlog list which > community members may or may not choose to work on. The Foundation > can't prescribe mandatory content improvement work without putting the > safe harbor provisions in jeopardy. Volunteers will be attracted to > working on such updates in proportion to the extent they see them as > being a worthy use of their editing time. > > I have additional detailed plans for testing which I will be happy to > discuss with interested co-mentors, because depending on available > resources there could be a way to eliminate substantial duplication of > effort. > > I have updated the synopses at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Accuracy_review > and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T89416 > > Best regards, > James Salsman > >>> I invite review of this preliminary proposal for a Google Summer of >>> Code project: >>> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Accuracy_review >>> >>> If you would like to co-mentor this project, please sign up. I've been >>> a GSoC mentor every year since 2010, and successfully mentored two >>> students in 2012 resulting in work which has become academically >>> relevant, including in languages which I can not read, i.e., >>> http://talknicer.com/turkish-tablet.pdf .) I am most interested in >>> co-mentors at the WMF or Wiki Education Foundation involved with >>> engineering, design, or education. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
