Accuracy review

= Accuracy review =


 * Public URL: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Accuracy_review
 * Phabricator report: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T89416
 * Announcement: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-February/080766.html

Name and contact information

 * Name: James Salsman
 * Email: jim@talknicer.com
 * IRC / Twitter handle: jsalsman
 * Web Page: http://talknicer.com
 * Resume available upon request; recent highlights
 * Location: Usually North America, Europe, or Asia
 * Typical working hours: varies; Mountain Standard Time (UTC -7) as of February, 2015

Synopsis
Create a medawiki-utilities bot to find articles in given categories, category trees, and lists. For each such article, find passages with (1) facts and statistics which are likely to have become out of date and have not been updated in a given number of years, and optionally (2) phrases which are likely unclear. Add an indication of the location and the text of those passages either to the page in question using templates, to a bookkeeping page with other page names as headings, and/or to a database local to the bot.

Use a customizable array of keywords and regular expressions (or optionally, the DELPH-IN LOGIN parser) to find such passages for review. Use an algorithm at least as good as that in to pre-compute the age of each word in an article, to avoid the move and blanking issues described in e.g.,  before processing each article of interest.

Convert flagged passages to GIFT questions (example parser) for review and present them to one or more subscribed reviewers. Update the source template with the reviewer(s)' answers to the GIFT question, but keep the original text as part of the template. When reviewers disagree, update the template to reflect that fact, and present the question to a third reviewer to break the tie.

Next step
Reach out to Simple English Wikipedia informing them of the possibility of a pilot study and gauge their response. (Per IRC discussion.)

Call for participation
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 ways to eliminate substantial duplication of effort. I look forward to discussing testing with co-mentor volunteers, who at present include:


 * 1) Maribel Acosta
 * 2) Fabian Flöck

If you are interested, please add your name.