Talk:Accuracy review

Re: table of each word in article dumps indicating its age
Not an appropriate way to do this. See the ongoing m:Research:Content persistence. --Nemo 08:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Do those methods accommodate reverted blanking and text passage moves? In any case, I've re-worked the description which was there when you responded, and am happy to cite which seems fast enough and sufficiently robust against such distortions. It searches for context directly instead of building indexes keyed on context, which is probably faster. Thank you! Jsalsman (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Future enhancement ideas
Here is a very rough outline of some ideas for future enhancement: Jsalsman (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) measurement of editor workload and benefits
 * 2) new ways of identifying out-of-date, suspect, and confusing content
 * 3) stronger redundant anonymous voting systems to eliminate advocacy bias
 * 4) integration with Wikipedia Zero
 * 5) integration with educational freeware for computer-aided instruction
 * 6) paid reviewer experiments
 * 7) reviewer pre-qualification
 * 8) ongoing reviewer reputation tracking
 * 9) translation support
 * 10) double blinding with secret ballots and supervised exclusion from source pages
 * 11) tests on real-world controversial subjects
 * 12) independent subject matter expert evaluation

Diagram captions
Jsalsman (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Accuracy review
 * 2) Isolation of passages to review
 * 3) Use of DELPH-IN parser to identify confusing passages
 * 4) Serialize review questions in GIFT for distribution to dedicated fact-checkers
 * 5) Measurement of editor workload and benefits
 * 6) Redundant anonymous and/or paid voting systems to reduce bias
 * 7) Integration with bona fide computer-aided instruction
 * 8) Reviewer pre-qualification and reputation tracking
 * 9) Evaluation by independent experts on controversial subjects