On 5/16/2012 11:04 PM, wikien-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 21:14:12 -0400
> From: Gwern Branwen<gwern0(a)gmail.com>
> To: English Wikipedia<wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] "How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got
> Caught by Reddit", _The Atlantic_
> Message-ID:
> <CAMwO0gyGeZA0j0ksTz3uNjdUH3zBGY3gqHH7KeTynSz82UFVxA(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>
>
> Incidentally, I have been finishing an experiment involving the
> removal of 100 random external links by an IP; I haven't analyzed it
> yet, so I don't know the outcome, but this gives us an opportunity!
>
> Would anyone in this thread (especially the ones convinced Wikipedia's
> editing community is in fine shape) care to predict what percentage or
> percentage range they expect will have been reverted?
>
> Or what percentage/percentage range they would regard as an acceptable
> failure-to-revert rate?
>
I just went through 19 random pages (9 of them didn't have any ELs, so I
didn't count them, and I found three articles in which the last EL was
not a useful link. One of them was a spam link to a (non-WMF)
wikiproject, one was a link to a find-a-grave page with a photo of the
subject (unneeded because we already had a photo of the subject), and
the third was a link to the presidential library in which a specific
judge's papers are archived. (That last would be relevant in an article
about the judge, but not so much for the article about the district
court for which he was the chief justice for ten years; I actually went
and added the link to the article on the judge, which didn't have such a
link.) That looks like a 30% fail rate. We'll see how many of them get
reverted, but I suspect that it won't be many, because I didn't go
through and randomly remove ELs, and I edited logged in; for some
reason, people who have been administrators for four years with over
18,000 edits tend to get reverted far less than IP editors. (Go figure.)
Hey all
Just wanted to let you know that we're going to be doing an Office Hours
session on the New Pages Feed (formerly New Page Triage/Page Triage).[1]
This isn't just to discuss progress, so on and so forth - this is because,
as promised,[2] we've deployed a functional prototype on en.wiki! We're
taking this opportunity to run people through using it and get any feedback
we can use to improve the tool.
So, if you're involved in New Page Patrol, or not because you found it too
opaque and want to see if this is any better for you, we'll be in
#wikimedia-office from 21:00 UTC.[3] Hope to see you all then :).
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_Pages_Feed
[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_Pages_Feed/Engagement_strategy
[3]
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?hour=21&min=00&sec=0&d…
--
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
As has been posted here before, CC is working on version 4.0 of their
licenses--in case you haven't seen it, the public draft is up in
several different formats at
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0_Drafts
Right now their focus is on attribution, and they are asking several
specific questions about things to change in the new version.
(A few of the open questions: Is there too much flexibility in
"reasonable manner"? Or not enough? Is there any information people
should be required to provide that they aren't providing? Should you
be able to use a shortcut by just providing a link, and if so, what
should you have to include?)
The questions and space for comment is on the CC wiki here:
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Attribution_and_marking#Questions_about…
(Ultimately, we hope to be able to use the 4.0 license version as the
default license version for Wikimedia projects--either BY-SA or BY,
depending on which project you are using. Several Wikimedians are
already participating in these discussions, as well as the legal staff
and myself, but your input on things that have and haven't worked well
in 3.0 would really help the process, especially if you have good
examples.)
I will be posting this message around to some of the wikis as well,
but please pass this message around where it is relevant, especially
if you are active on non-English projects!
Cheers,
Kat
--
Your donations keep Wikipedia free: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Web: http://www.mindspillage.org Email: kat(a)wikimedia.org, kat(a)mindspillage.org
(G)AIM, Freenode, gchat, identi.ca, twitter, various social sites: mindspillage
Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement.Here's the
Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/
I see a pile of Wikimedians engaging with them, which is promising.
I visited WMUK on Tuesday and chatted with Stevie Benton (the new
media person), Richard Symonds and Daria Cybulska about this topic.
The approach we could think of that could *work* is pointing out "if
you're caught with *what other people* think is a COI, your name and
your client's name are mud." Because in all our experience, even
sincere PR people seem biologically incapable of understanding COI,
but will understand generating *bad* PR.
- d.
Carcharoth wrote:
>What I'm thinking in particular
is that some FACs would benefit from what is essentially an *external*
peer review process (as opposed to the internal peer review and other
review processes). i.e. Actively soliciting reviews from those holding
credentials (academic or otherwise) in the topic area. Historically,
given the "anyone an edit" and (mostly) pseudonymous nature of
editing, there hasn't been much interest in this model of reviewing,
but I'd be interested to see reactions to this.
Some medical FAs had the benefit of external peer review (coeliac disease, subarachnoid hemorrhage), but as always it depends on someone outside Wikipedia to take an interest. The quality, depth and timeliness of the peer review is largely dependant on that.
Jfdwolff