Page MenuHomePhabricator

Accuracy Review of Wikipedia (Outreachy Round 12 Proposal)
Closed, DuplicatePublic


Name and contact information

Name: Priyanka Mandikal
IRC nick: prnk28
GitHub: priyankamandikal
Location: Goa, India
Timezone: Kolkata, INDIA, UTC+5:30
Typical working hours: 6 – 8 hours from 10 am to 12 midnight (local time)


This project aims to provide editors with an easy mechanism to find and review inaccurate content in Wikipedia articles. The aim is to achieve this with the help of algorithms that are specifically designed to flag suspected content, which the editors can then review by a three-way mechanism. The reviewer bot finds articles in given categories, category trees, and lists. For each such article, the bot aims to accomplish the following tasks:
(1) Flag passages with facts and statistics which are likely to have become out of date and have not been updated in a given number of years
(2) Flag phrases which are likely unclear
(3) Flag bad student edits

Flagged instances are then stored in a database and open to the reviewers for reviewing and closing the flags. A reviewer can decide to either 'Accept' or 'Dismiss' a review item as valid/invalid. Two reviewers decide the fate of each review item, and in the case of a conflict, it is sent to a third reviewer. Reviewer reputation scores are computed based on a mechanism of acceptability of reviews by other peer reviewers. Reviews which lowered the scores can be optionally displayed to the reviewers.

The interface is being implemented in Python Flask and uses SQLAlchemy ORM for the database.

What it means to accomplish

Provide a mechanism for auto-flagging specific content to be reviewed and present them to the reviewers.

Step 1: Develop a login and authentication system for the reviewers

Step 2: Design the review item queue database

Step 3: Integrate the workflow as depicted here.

Step 4: Develop and implement algorithms to help in each of the aforementioned tasks

Note that Step 1 has already been implemented as part of the microtasks during the contribution stage.

How will it benefit Wikimedia objectives such as these?

  • It will assist the editor community in drawing attention to specific parts of an article that need to be reviewed for copy-editing, rather than the existing process of just flagging entire articles
  • It'll provide a robust mechanism for review items to be analyzed by different reviewers
  • It will help in realizing the broader content reviewal objectives of the Wikimedia community



The main deliverable will be a working web application for editors to review flagged content, which explicitly pinpoints inaccuracies within an article.

Required Deliverables

  • Phase I
    • Design the review item queue database (milestone 1)
    • Implement the manual list based input functionality (milestone 2)
  • Phase II
    • Implement the reviewer reputation scoring system (milestone 3)
    • Add accepted flags to a published list on a webpage (milestone 4)
  • Phase III
    • Design and model functions to implement the flagging of content (milestone 5)
  • Testing and Documentation.


Community Bonding Period (May 10 - May 22)
  • Remain in constant touch with my mentor(s) and community.
  • Explore features that can be used for flagging content, by actively editing wiki articles. This would, for example, help me in better understanding diffs, permalinks, ordinary article URLs, etc.
Review item queue database design and creation(1 week, May 23 - May 29) - Milestone-1
  • Based on what I have inferred via editing articles and upon discussion with my mentor, set up the review item queue database.
  • This would include review id, article name, wiki type, link, link type (diff, permalink, url, etc), pertinent excerpt text, source of review item (manual entry, student editor, poor readability scores, outdated content, etc) and so on
  • Research into the relationships between databases in SQLAlchemy ORM and define relationships between the Reviewer and the Review item queue databases.
Manual list based input (2 weeks, May 30 - June 12) - Milestone-2
  • Create a reviewer profile page
  • Create a webform with which a reviewer can manually enter an item that needs to be reviewed.
  • Implement methods to add these items to the review item queue database created earlier.
    • Methods for fetching the form content and updating the database
    • Methods for querying and displaying this database
  • Write testcases for exhaustively testing the implemented methods
Research Period (1 week, June 13 - June 19)
  • This period will be in preparation for executing Phase II of the project
  • Design the architecture of the reviewer reputation scoring system. It should handle the following two cases
    • Scenario 1: Both the reviewers agree on the decision of accepting or dismissing the flag
    • Scenario 2: Upon disagreement, send this item to a third reviewer for consensus
  • Also additionally explore ways of obtaining article dumps and iterating over them in an efficient manner
Mid-term evaluation
  • Submission of completed code
  • Begin Phase II of the project
Integrate with the workflow (1.5 weeks, June 20 - June 29)
  • Every item on the queue must be served to at least two reviewers
    • Randomly allocate every item to two reviewers
    • Keep track of the status of the item and serve it to a third reviewer if necessary
Implement the reviewer reputation scoring system (2 weeks, June 30 - July 13) - Milestone-3
  • Write methods for computing the reputation scores of reviewers
  • Use a sound scoring method that uses the percentage of responses that were agreed upon by peer reviewers as a metric
    • Ability to display responses that reduced the reviewer's score
    • Add options to view such responses on the reviewer's home page
  • Testing of the written scoring functions
Publish the list of accepted flags (2 weeks, July 14 – July 27) - Milestone-4
  • Every flag that is accepted as valid by the reviewers are to be continually published on a web page and removed from the review item queue database. Flags that have been dismissed must also be removed from the db.
  • The published list is a chronological list with the ability to view 100 items at a time
    • Discuss with mentors about the possible ways of handling this task
Community Review and Obtaining article dumps (1 week, July 28 – Aug 3)
  • Community review of the working model till now
    • Gather feedback from the community on the basic version of the application sans automatic flagging
  • In the mean time, begin work on phase III of the project
    • Obtain article dumps and device efficient mechanisms to iterate over them so as to run flagging algorithms on each one
    • Discuss with mentors on how Wikiwho can be incorporated into the project at this stage for obtaining authorship (for student edits), revision dates (for outdated content), etc
Implement one flagging algorithm (1.5 weeks, Aug 4 – Aug 14) - Milestone-5
  • Discuss with mentors on devising algorithms for flagging outdated content from the retrieved dumps
    • This could involve mechanisms to detect outdated weather/ climate, population statistics on geographical content and so on based on revision dates
  • Also include the previously implemented readability tests into the automatic flagging system
Wrap up (2 weeks, Aug 15 – Aug 23)
  • Wrap-up phase
  • Edit documentation and code
  • Testing
  • Submission to Google

About Me


University: BITS Pilani Goa Campus, India
Major: Computer Science (B.E.) and Physics (Int. MSc.)
Degree level: 4th year undergrad
Graduation year: 2017

Why this project is important to me

As I was working on the microtasks for this project, I got more interested in how Wikipedia deals with outdated content and if there is a mechanism to detect inaccuracies in facts, if any. Although it has working systems for detecting vandalism (ClueBot_NG) and quality of revisions (Huggle), I learnt that there is no explicit mechanism for checking facts and reviewing the accuracy of content that hasn't been updated in a while. In addition, many bots that are responsible for flagging poorly structured articles tend to flag entire articles (!) rather than the culprit sentence constructs/passages. So copy-editing long articles is a really painful task!

This motivated me to pursue this project right from December on wards when my winter break began. I actually spent quite some time researching on the application's architecture, use cases, database options and flagging mechanisms before coding. This was very fruitful in the sense that as I progressed in the coding phase, it made so much more sense to have spent ample time on the design phase, which I think is crucial for any novel project. I completed the login system for reviewers in the time I was working on the project and also implemented a couple of readability tests that spew out scores for passages/articles based on their level of 'understandability' for the reader.

Another major motivator for pursuing this project is my interest in the areas of Natural Language Processing and Artificial Intelligence. Although in the current internship timeline, there is little scope for actually implementing the algorithms per se, I am excited to know how this project might pan out once strong flagging algorithms are brought into the picture! I will definitely delve into the algorithmic part once the app structure is completed (hopefully by July end).

This project is important to me, not only as an internship experience, but as a learning process itself. I hope to give and take back a lot through this project.

Past experience

Contributions to this task

I have been actively working on this project since mid-December. I was constantly in touch with my mentors and spent quite some time envisioning the architecture of the entire application before beginning to code. During the coding phase, I went over various tutorials on building web applications in Python Flask and familiarized myself with the tools needed. I then went ahead and built the entire login system for reviewers along with exhaustive test cases to check the authentication and secure password-hashing functionalities.

I have provided links for the project repository and blog below.
Project GitHub Repository
Detailed Documentation

I have written over a 1000 lines of code. The detailed documentation for this can be viewed in the project blog

In brief, I implemented the following features as part of the login system:

  • Basic app structure in Flask with templates for base, index, error pages, etc. This also involved setting up the configuration environments file for development, testing and production.
  • Created the reviewer database in SQLite using SQLAlchemy ORM. The attributes are id, email, username, password_hash, confirmed, agreement, and reputation.
  • Password Hashing and Authentication Blueprint creation – used the Werkzeug package for hashing passwords so as to securely store them in the database. Test cases were also implemented.
  • Implemented user authentication with flask-login package for handling reviewer logins. Also made use of the UserMixin class.
  • Added a registration form for new users which has methods for validating email and username from the already existing values in the database.
  • Implemented confirmation mail sending functionality that sends a confirmation link to the specified email id during registration and activates the account once it has been validated. Made use of 'itsdangerous' package which provides cryptographically signed cookies for generating confirmation tokens.
  • Functionality for Updating and Resetting passwords was also implemented

Note that all the above code has been extensively tested and can be verified in the code base.

Other contributions

I actually began exploring Open Source organizations in November 2015. Prior to that, I had focused on working on personal projects or in small groups. Exploring the FOSS community has really opened my eyes to the learning opportunities that working in larger communities brings to the table. The exchange of ideas and mentorship that happens has truly been inspiring in more ways than one.

Under the 'personal projects' category, I have worked on a couple of machine learning projects and have gained experience in dealing with large data sets, feature extraction, as well as training and testing with various ML techniques such as classification, regression, clustering, Adaboost, SVMs, etc. I am currently learning about neural nets and hope to complete two projects in deep learning and artificial intelligence by the end of this semester.

Other details needed by Outreachy

Do you meet the eligibility requirements?


Preferred pronoun


Are you applying for GSoC 2016? If yes, to which organizations?

Yes. I am applying to WikiMedia for the same project namely 'Accuracy Review of Wikipedia'.

Do you have any other time commitments during this period?

No. I am free during summer break.

If a student, specify any coursework and credits taken

None. No courses during summer.

Event Timeline

@prnk28 it'd be better if you could add the Outreachy specific details at the end of T129536 , so that this one can be closed as a duplicate. It's better to track both proposals in the same task as essentially the project details would remain the same for both programs.

We removed all project tags in the last bulk-edit for this one, and adding them back to keep track of this declined proposal.