Thursday, November 17, 2005

Ideas on quality assurance for Ultimate Wiktionary

Ultimate Wiktionary is intended to be used. To be used not only interactively but also by programs. Certainly when the lexicological data is used in earnest, the need for quality assurance will exist and it can be understood that this makes sense. On the other hand, the way of the wiki is that we allow for the collaboration of everyone who has something to contribute.

This is a complicated thing and the current thinking is as follows:
  • All edits need to be validated two times by different people to be considered "good"
  • When two words are considered to be the same in Meaning and Expression, they can be merged. The translations of these meanings will be merged but they get the status of a newly added word. This is to ensure that translations are considered again for their validity.
  • Bots will be disallowed from making interactive edits. Every bot has to be associated with an interactive user.
  • A thesaurus or glossary can, when it is agreed that it needs this status, be write protected; this means that comments can be made on the "talk page".
  • When a bot is to be used for a specific usage ie the maintenance of a specific write protect thesaurus or glossary, it can be given a status of implied quality control. This means that the organisation that maintains this resource in the Ultimate Wiktionary is wholy responisible for its own quality. We are thinking of terminology like the terminology of the Roman Catholic church where the exact nature of the definitions is a matter of doctrine.
  • The user associated with such a bot will be the admin for this glossary or thesaurus. This admin can allow users to make changes to its resource.
  • Like on the other Wikimedia projects, we will need admins to do the necessary maintenance. The admin status for deletions should be given per language.
  • A priviledged few will be admin / bureacrat for the whole of the project. They will have access to all languages and all resources. As you can imagine they will be in a glass cage.
Thanks,
GerardM

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

A few comments...

All edits need to be validated two times by different people to be considered "good"

Does this mean that every edit needs to be confirmed twice before it goes online (unlike the current system where every change goes online immediately)? This would be quite a radical change and not necessarily a good one.

The user associated with such a bot will be the admin for this glossary or thesaurus. This admin can allow users to make changes to its resource.

Why should the admin of an organisation have complete control over these glossaries or thesauri (i. e. the right to allow or disallow users and edits)? On their respective websites the organisations do of course have complete control, but I think on the Wiktionary they should not have a privileged status. The Roman Catholic Church doesn't have a privileged status on its Wikipedia article either.

Regards,

GerardM said...

When an article has not yet been validated, it will be visible it will be marked as unconfirmed or in need of confirmation. This benefits other applications that have a need for a high level of quality, they can CHOOSE not to include unconfirmed content.

When we host the glossary of the Roman Catholic church, it has an obvious value. This meaning is its POV and will be marked as such. It is important that we know what a word means in a given context. By giving control we enable the inclusion of content. This is done in a non-discriminary way therefore other competing thesauri or glossari are equally welcome.

Thanks,
GerardM

Anonymous said...

1. I see. In that case I agree with the suggestion, it seems useful. Should only registered members be allowed to confirm content, what about IPs?

2. When competing glossaries and thesauri are allowed and the the POV is marked, then I'm ok with it. Still I wonder whether big organisations will feel the need to be active in Wiktionary in the first place. That will only be the case when Wiktionary has reached a point where it is relevant in the world. It might still be some time until that happens.

Regards,

(Great so see that the project is making progress!)

GerardM said...

Only registered users can validate. Otherwise you would allow people to game the system. Now reputation is involved.

When one organisation starts to use the UW for the purpose of seeing what the Wiki process can bring them, it will be interesting to see what its effects are. The first organisation will be the one that publishes the GEMET database ..

Thanks,
GerardM