-
Lyudmila Vaseva authoredLyudmila Vaseva authored
Meeting 11.04.2019
Questions
- Is it essential that we have somewhat current data on bot/automated tools aided edits? As far as I can see, last data on the subject are from Geiger2011 which is 10 years old in the mean time..
- 30min meetings on separate days
Notes
2-Background
-
Background on vandalism based directly on Wikipedia is original research! We want to have the literature review in this chapter ** keep it small (or leave it for later altogether) ** only clarifications in exceptional cases (when I've got the feeling, definitions/notions, etc. are really not clear without this) ** C. finds the typology interesting, maybe we can use it for determining how/for what different quality control machanisms are used
-
Purpose of this chapter is to concisely show the state of knowledge of the scientific community about quality control machanisms on Wikipedia
TODO
-
Look for more recent papers/numbers concerning (algorithmic) quality control: newer papers by Geiger/Halfaker? (check google scholar)
-
Take a step back, make a more high level overview: how does all this come together? ** use an analog concept orga/sorting approach (headings on post-its or similar) ** begin at the end: what do I want to achieve? (find the edit filters' place in whole construction)
-
At the end of this chapter I want to know where the filters fit in: what gap they fill? (Or maintain it's still not clear)
-
Visualise the quality control system what happens (can happen) when a new edit is submitted ** a filter is triggered ** edit is rejected ** complain at false positives ** or edit is altered and submitted ** edit can get completely reverted by ** Cluebot NG ** other vandal fighting bots (Cluebot NG is mostly the fastest) ** Huggle (or other tool) ** editor is warned ** editor can bring their edit back ** second warning ** ...
-
is there already an overview of the quality control mechanisms on Wikipedia by any chance
-
send C. a high level overview next week