Extension talk:ORES

Jump to navigation Jump to search

About this board

Llywelyn2000 (talkcontribs)

Can someone install ORES on the Welsh (cy) Wikipedia, please? I'm interested in the Article quality assessment tool. It would be much appreciated! Thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Reply to "Installing ORES on cy-wiki"

Wikipedia content sources are they estimated in ORES, for the task T141177

1
Rical (talkcontribs)

I'm assigned to the task T141177: "Wikipedia main content losts sources because too reverts, try to preserve them".

Then I need to know if the estimation of Wikipedia main content sources are already take in account in ORES. Thanks in advance for your attention.

Reply to "Wikipedia content sources are they estimated in ORES, for the task T141177"

Is Ores service only applicable to wikimedia fundation wikis?

2
Reasno (talkcontribs)

if so, I think the subject page should make it clear.

Adamw (talkcontribs)

Good question. For now, yes. However, we interact with the wikis through MediaWiki APIs so in theory it would be possible to run on third-party wikis. Where it gets tricky is that you would probably have to run your own infrastructure.

Thanks, I'll take your advice and mention this in the article.

Reply to "Is Ores service only applicable to wikimedia fundation wikis?"

[Cross-post] Including new filter interface in ORES review tool

1
EpochFail (talkcontribs)
The new filtering interface demo

Hey folks,

I made a post at mw:Topic:Tflhjj5x1numzg67 about including the new advanced filtering interface that the Collaboration Team is working on in the ORES beta feature. See the original post and add any discussion there.

Reply to "[Cross-post] Including new filter interface in ORES review tool"

Suggestion - Separate page for reporting highly likely vandalism e.g. Special:RevisionReport

1
197.218.81.148 (talkcontribs)

The idea of using ORES for surfacing rated revisions in recent changes is reasonable. However, there is still excessive amounts of noise in the revisions, and recent changes is definitely has a lot of usability problems.

One option is to generate a report (e.g. Special:RevisionReport) that shows only the highest likely and and 100% content damage and vandalism, for example:

  • Page blanking - there is rarely a need to blank a page, either it needs to be deleted or improved
  • Huge amount of random characters - e.g. "asdasdASDZXczxc"
  • Emoji: lots of emojis in an article
  • Hoaxes: If it is even possible to detect that
  • Repetitive text: The "buy viagra ... buy viagra" kind of thing
  • Similar entries in multiple articles: Often vandals hit several articles adding nearly identical text

The idea is that people can simple focus on these, and clean them up gradually without looking into the whole recent changes. While there are improvements on the horizon for recent changes, it is still a tool attempting to fulfill too many use-cases and failing miserably at a lot of them.

Another idea, would be to flag potential bad actors. While this may be controversial for registered users, it might be perfect for IP addresses to identify if there is a particular pattern of behavior for an ip range.

Reply to "Suggestion - Separate page for reporting highly likely vandalism e.g. Special:RevisionReport"
There are no older topics