Grants talk:IdeaLab/Bot to detect and tag advocacy editing

Validation edit

What would acceptable false positive and false negative rates be? How would the bot communicate its findings? EllenCT (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

don't know. we would have to work that out and i imagine that folks who deal with edit-flagging bots have experience with those rates and how to signify. i imagine it would operate like COIBot Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
What if the bot learned an incorrect fact? Will the bot's knowledge base be public or private? Could the bot's knowledge base be edited? Could it be re-trained? Would the training be open to abuse? EllenCT (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Biased or Opinionated Sources edit

Hi. I'm a new contributor and thought I'd add two cents regarding advocacy editing. I had an article on my watchlist that seemed to lack quality regarding WP:Biased and advocacy editing. Forgive me if this feedback idea I have here isn't very notable.

-WP:Biased snippet- Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". -end WP:Biased snippet-

I'm guessing that a lot of advocacy editing is attempted by finding opinionated, biased, or boldly-claiming source material to use for citation and then take additional liberties with how the article content is phrased. An example would be to cite a single opinionated writer and then write article content that says, "Writers expressed belief that..." This would distort or make less verifiable the prevalence or nature of the opinionated writer's view.

So I wonder if the bot would include biased and un-biased web citation criteria, enabling the bot to, in some way, use questionable, opinionated, advocacy-edit-related source information as a starting point. Then the bot might examine the article content connected with the questionable citation source, using criteria for suspicious language that indicates vague reference to the citation.

Again, I'm sorry, I might be stating things that are obvious, simple and/or vague here. I was just interested in the project and thought I'd provide feedback.

Cheers!

April 12 Proposal Deadline: Is your project ready for funding? edit

The deadline for Individual Engagement Grant (IEG) submissions this round is April 12th, 2016. If you’ve developed your idea into a project that would benefit from funding, consider applying!

To apply, you must (1) create a draft request using the “Expand into an Individual Engagement Grant” button on your idea page, (2) complete the proposal entirely, filling in all empty fields, and (3) change the status from "draft" to "proposed." As soon as you’re ready, you should begin to invite any communities affected by your project to provide feedback on your proposal talk page.

If you have any questions about IEG or would like support in developing your proposal, we're hosting a few proposal help sessions this month in Google Hangouts:

I'm also happy to set up an individual session. With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 00:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jytdog and Esquivalience, just sending a last reminder that grant proposals for IEG open call are due by end of day tomorrow. If you are working on a draft, don't forget to follow the instructions Jethro laid out by then! Our last Hangout session is tomorrow (Tuesday) at 16:00 - 17:00 UTC if you have any questions. Best, --Marti (WMF) (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
Return to "IdeaLab/Bot to detect and tag advocacy editing" page.