Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/1911 verification

Please see the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles

Article comprehensiveness
The guidelines here only refer to checking if the content is up to date. While we're at going through all 11,000 articles again, wouldn't it make sense to put a quick note on each WP article's talk page as to the status of it relative to the EB article? The most important thing I can think of is is our article as complete/comprehensive. If the EB article had 5kb of text and ours is 1kb, we certainly didn't do as good a job in being comprehensive. Now of course some things EB covered we don't need to, but we should at least note it on the talk page. In any case verifying completeness wouldn't be much more work. Any other ideas for things ver important to check while we're at it? - Taxman Talk 23:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Verified items
The below items were verified prior to the reorganization and the changes could not be easily reincorporated. Where possible please update the status on the appropriate page. --Reflex Reaction (talk)&bull; 16:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Verified
 * 1) Aaron  - biblical figure, can't be out of date
 * 2) Aaron Burr  - good article
 * 3) Abner  - biblical figure, can't be out of date
 * 4) Abner Doubleday  - good article, up to date with baseball stuff
 * 5) Abraham  - biblical figure, can't be out of date
 * 6) Acapulco  - 1911 text appears restricted to "geography" and "history" section; article looks all right
 * 7) Acorn  - pretty decent article, well referenced
 * 8) Adirondack Mountains  - good refs, appears fine
 * 9) Ahab  - biblical figure, can't be out of date
 * 10) Akkadian Empire  - not the best article, but isn't out of date
 * 11) Alexis  - ancient Greek poet, can't be out of date
 * 12) Alps  - good article on the mountain range
 * 13) Alwar  - isn't out of date; stubbish on contemporary matters.
 * 14) Alypius of Antioch  - good article, minor changes to links made.
 * 15) Alzira (city)  - used Spanish version of article to update

Double-checking and proposed deletion
I propose that articles be double-checked to make sure that they are accurate and a procedure for deleting unsalvageable articles be made.


 * I have added this to J-1 Completion Tagging:

Articles with - are untouched. Articles with = have been redirected. Articles with V have been verified link is correct and contains 1911 or proper tag. Articles with C have had some attempt at proper categorization.


 * I suppose a F tag for fact checking and maybe strike through when the work has been verified by another? Electrawn 08:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not what I've been doing with B. I have checked each article and, when I'm satisfied, deleted them from the list. That's what User:Reflex_Reaction specified when creating the lists. In the end, we have to declare someone's review to be the final one and let the babies go. If you feel strongly, I can bring the original list back and add tags instead, but it's not just me; there have been others working in (and deleting from) other letters. FWIW, my own checklist is:
 * Move to "non-inclusion" list if warranted
 * Create a redirect if warranted
 * Put in extra 1911 text if I feel I can, and do any obvious style or OCR cleanups
 * Add 1911 where there is actual 1911 text present, and make sure the tag is in a References section
 * Assess the article for one of the tags update-EB, 1911POV, include-EB, ni-eb and add it
 * Add categories and interwikis where I can
 * Delete and move on
 * There just aren't enough of us to have two reviewers (that makes three, including the original editor) checking each article and be finished by doomsday. David Brooks 17:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems we are on the same page. Being new to the project, I'm just tagging the work, I suppose I am asking for a quick peer review. If satisfactory, I'll just start deleting as well. Electrawn 19:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I must admit I've used the tags, especially Update-eb, liberally, implying yet another pass by some future writer. David Brooks 19:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Double-checking
I propose that the articles be verified by more than one person to help avoid careless work or work that is poor because the editor does not know or understand what needs to be done, which is why we need to do this verification in the first place.

One option would be to place articles in a "proposed verified" list. The article would have to be removed by a second editor after verifying the article. Having the original and one to three other editors signing their names next to the article would be another option. Also, the article would have to stay in the list for a certain period of time, at least a week, perhaps more if there are a lot of articles to go through. Editors would be strongly encouraged to give a descriptive edit summary or a note on the talk page explaining the sources that they checked and the changes they made, or if no changes were necessary. There is a question of what to expect from the later editors. I suggest they at least read the article to get a feel for whether its information may be out of date or inaccurate and check at least one source. Besides verifying other information, checking a source will help identify many of the topics that now have different names or are not properly accented. A list of things that are very likely to be out of date could be given to editors for this, such as the population of a city and its main industries.

I am open to different ideas, but I think it is important that some type of double-checking occurs. Otherwise we will have the same problems we had with the previous project. -- Kjkolb 08:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion list
I think that there should be a list of articles that are proposed for deletion. Articles should not be removed from the list or deleted unless there is a consensus to do so. There was such as list when the articles were being added, but apparently all of them were eventually added, anyway. I don't think that the articles should be taken to Articles for Deletion on a case-by-case basis. People tend to have strong feelings about whether or not to include an article from the 1911 EB. If they don't think that we have done our homework and/or we don't make a very persuasive case for deletion, they will likely vote keep without doing much checking into the articles themselves. Once a bad article has survived AfD because of a poor nomination, it will be much harder to delete it. Some editors will vote keep simply based on the previous decision. The default is and should be to keep articles, but when it is from the 1911 EB, there is too much reluctance for deletion.

I have two suggestions for how to handle deletions. The first is that the nominations are done in batches or individually on AfD, with specific explanations given in the nomination and a short summary of a longer, generic explanation, with a link to the full explanation. The second is that a decision to keep or delete is reached within the project, also with a thorough and specific explanation. The generic explanation may be unnecessary, especially if the specific one is thorough, but I think that it is a good backup and eliminates the need to state certain cases for deletion over and over again. If one is not used, perhaps a boilerplate nomination should be available, with the reasons for deleting the specific article added to it. One important thing to mention is that the text will still be available online at the two commercial sites and a version verified for accuracy to the original is being made on Wikisource. Again, I am open to other ideas. -- Kjkolb 08:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Need
Some of you may find the suggestions overly complicated or burdensome and I am willing to use a different system. However, our process for working with these articles needs to change. The quality of some of the articles is just awful. They are out of date, have the wrong name, are inaccurate, racist or no longer exist (common for districts, states and provinces). The first and most important reason for verification is to have accurate information in articles. Another reason is to avoid deletion of good articles with the bad by a group of admins fed up with the inaccurate articles or by Jimbo after an embarrassing news story on one or more of the articles (some of the articles are almost as bad as negro, though not as long). I would say that this is unlikely, but not out of the question. -- Kjkolb 08:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

New template for verification
Here's a template that may help: ni-eb. Sometimes you'll find a Wikipedia article that is obviously deficient, and it has a decent 1911 article. If the 1911 info should be included into the Wikipedia article, and you don't feel like doing it right now, just put on the talk page, and that adds the article to Category:Articles needing improvement from EB1911. Then someone who feels like it can go through those and add 1911 info to the article. What do you think? Useful? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is useful. Can a link to the jrank version be added? -- Kjkolb 19:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, any URL will work. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Propose another template
I see the template has only been used in one place. It could be used in others, but I agree with the comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles. It would be more useful to have a talk page template, say saying something amounting to "This article contains information from EB1911 that may be out of date or otherwise inappropriate for WP. Please fix it and remove this template. You can also remove the template if you determine there really isn't a problem". That would capture the spirit of the 1911 cleanup, I think. Any objection? David Brooks 05:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And, now I've done a few, I have seen cases where there the existing article is just fine, but there are some factual nuggets in 1911 that could be inserted (so long as it is done stylishly, of course). The text of ni-eb is (currently) too strong for such cases.


 * Also, while I'm thinking about it, the problem with putting a template on a talk page is that the template must be deleted when the job is done, which goes against the "don't delete from talk pages" rule. If you do delete the template, at least leave a note behind. David Brooks 17:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Check out some new templates described on the project page. I'm going to start using them. David Brooks 06:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Once an article is tagged for later review, does anyone have an opinion on whether it should be removed from the list? I don't. David Brooks 06:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Now I do. I'm going to remove them. Otherwise, there's no mechanism for removing them if another editor helpfully fixes the article. In effect, the two categories Category:1911 Britannica articles needing updates and Category:Articles needing improvement from EB1911 are extensions of this verification list. David Brooks 17:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The other 26,000 articles
I alluded to this before, but I wanted to put a marker down here. According to the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition article, EB1911 has 40,000 articles. We started the project with a list of 11,000 or 14,000 (I remember both numbers). I assume Bogdan kicked us off by taking the complete list of 40,000 and removing all the blues in one swell foop. Among those 26,000 (or 29,000) must be many articles where the WP entry is about a different topic from the EB entry, and more (probably many more) where it is less comprehensive - in those cases, the template is appropriate.

In theory, it'd be nice one day to wade through that 26,000 list and check.

But I agree with the sense of the apparently few people still paying attention to EB1911: the most important task is to fix the really bad cases of uncritical inclusion (hence the suggestion), and revisit the reappearing redlinks. Yes, I'm back. David Brooks 05:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hope that I too would be welcomed back to this project, considering my earlier fiasco (way back in January 2006) in dealing with these articles. I feel that I have a sense of responsibility in verifying these article as well. Additionally, I agree with you that it would be a good idea to go through the other 26 000 articles as well. --  S iva1979 Talk to me  19:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

User submissions to the online 1911 versions
LoveToKnow has been wikified and is now accepting both corrections and updates. Jrank.org also accepts updates. Both claim copyright, so both should be considered tainted. See more at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles. David Brooks 14:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Status of the project
I estimate that this project will take until the year 2043 at the present rate; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles for more details. David Brooks 05:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that I've finished page B, there's another update; see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles. David Brooks (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Calling all interested editors.
I would appreciate it if all editors please respond if you still care about this project.

I just downloaded the entire scanned version of the EB1911, to avoid the asserted copyrights. This took about 72 hours (at a low bitrate) using bit torrent. I did this only because I wanted to expand the Michel Baron article without worrying about the claimed copyrights at the other EB 1911 sites on the web.

I expanded the article and then added a link. Now I have a problem: we need to distinguish an article that references EB 1911, from an article that is a simple unverified data dump of EB 1911. I think Michel Baron is now all the way up to date even though most of the material is (now) from EB 1911. How should I tag this?

I seem to be the only serious participant on the Project Gutenberg author list, which is why I worked on the Michel Baron article. I can work on the EB 1911 verification project by myself also, but it's lonely. -Arch dude (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * First: congratulations on the effort, but it's already been done by Tim Starling here, and that is apparently an unencumbered copy. It was a temporary demo, but the pages have been there for years now. They are not suitable for copy and paste, though.


 * I'm still laboring on the project off and on. You're right, one goal is to spot divergences from the original. You get a sixth sense for these, and usually Greek letters and accented characters are wrong unless an editor has taken the time to clean them up. Some other tidying should be done, especially where there is a nasty piece of POV (there often is, especially in biographies). See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles for my experience working with the first B page, and User:DavidBrooks/sandbox for my own personal tracking system. David Brooks (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I did NOT re-scan EB 1911! I merely grabbed Tim's bit torrent, so I now have a local copy. I clearly did not make my question clear enough, so here goes again: What does a tag really mean? Does it mean "warning: this article is still too raw to trust?" Is there a suitable tag that means "EB 1911 is a major source, but the article is OK now?" -Arch dude (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the misunderstanding. There is a tag template that says the reverse: someone has looked at this article and it still needs work: update-eb (or 1911POV for really bad ones). But, directly to your first question, an article should be considered raw if it's on the verification lists and not notated as having been verified. That's a strict standard, because as it happens the majority of the articles were appropriately wikified and checked for typos during the original uptake, as far as I have seen. Originally maybe we should have had editors tagging articles to assert they had given some thought to the inclusion. The 1911 tag just says some or all of the article is sourced from 1911; there is currently no additional tag to say that in addition someone has done more than a mere dump of the OCR version. Anyway, there are different possible levels of correction: you can just remove the OCR errors, you can reword in a more contemporary voice, you can change some of the wording that implies that the 1890's were recent, or you can add data from and references to more recent scholarship, and other options in between What would be the standard for "OK"?. 24.20.125.162 (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC) -- sorry, just realized I wasn't signed in. David Brooks (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, David. For this particular article, I decided to add the original to Wikisource and link to it. This gives the interested reader a way to directly evaluate the updated wikipedia version against the original 1911 version. If I ever need to do this in the future, I will start by creating the wikisource version and then copy and update it for Wikipedia. -Arch dude (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Proposal: I would like to add a new template. Let's call it "1911-OK". Any article that has an equivalent article in the 1911 EB is "OK" if and only if:
 * the 1911EB article is on Wikisource
 * an editor has determined that all relevant 1911EB information is now in the Wikipedia article.
 * an editor has determined that the 1911EB info does not need further edits for POV or currancy.
 * the "1911-OK" tag must occur in the reference section, and will act as a Wikisource tag. The tag means that an editor has determined that no further action is needed with respect to the 1911 EB. The tag remains vaild even if the Wikipedia article eventually has no 1911 content, since the tag will continue to reference the Wikisource. -Arch dude (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've asked at if there can be a list of the article examined and considered not to have major errors, or to be already adequately fixed. DGG (talk) 04:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Shrinkage
Am considering shrinking the pages down to ~200 per page, along the lines of the Mythology, Art and History of Ideas Hotlists. Will hold off until I can get a second opinion. Eyeball kid (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Upon reflection, I'll just keep it to 500 articles per page for nowEyeball kid (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Pruning
At what point should completed articles be removed from the list? Eyeball kid (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Never, I thought. There's nothing really to be gained by removing them, as opposed to (as at present) changing the tag. Also, I'm not sure what you're trying to gain by moving them around.


 * Although User:PBS and I are apparently the only people who are currently curating using these lists, we've worked out a protocol and I'm using them to revisit all the B articles in light of a more up-to-date convention on EB1911 tagging (actual 1911 quotes should be very explicit, either by using inline=1 in a reference, or by including an "Attirution" header in the References section). Also, we're updating the title= to wstitle= if there's a Wikisource article. Other than these lists, Category:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_a_citation_from_the_1911_Encyclopaedia_Britannica_with_no_article_parameter is another good place to start.


 * Finally, I've been keeping the statistics table up to date automatically; I have an app that scans all the lists entries (the criterion I use is to count the lines that still end in a hyphen). David Brooks (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I boldly updated the project page to reflect the more contemporary consensus. David Brooks (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

remove the search template
The search after each entry on the lists was intended to help users create any redlinked articles, and as a secondary goal to beef up stubs. It seems that, by now, almost all legitimate articles have at least some presence in Wikipedia, and remaining redlinks are mostly typos. On the other hand, the 500 or template calls, each generating 11 links, bog down the page, and currently the rendering breaks down in a mysterious way, usually around #285 of the list. I doubt anyone is using these links. If nobody objects (is anyone listening?) I'll systematically replace them with a single google link. David Brooks (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the fix to search in November, both page rendering and the load on the browser are much cheaper (the equivalent of using ShortSearch, in fact). So I'll leave them as is. David Brooks (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)