Sandbox: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 16:47, 19 August 2022

This wikiproject is a group of editors who aim to improve the reliability and accuracy of pages relating to the topics of the DNS, Internet Governance, the domain name industry, Cybersecurity, Web3 technologies, and IoT. If you would like to contribute, please add yourself as a participant in the project, inquire on the community portal, and see the to-do list, below.

Scope

This WikiProject is a collaboration to improve articles relating to ICANN and internet governance more broadly We strive for a diverse editor base and aquatic science topics to help combat problems on wikis.

Goals

Improve articles within the scope of the project through [1] and NPOV editing. Article quality goals

Editing advice

Helpful tutorial on how to edit Wikipedia pages
Essay about editing Wikipedia for research scientists
Tips for how to create a new article
The Wikipedia Adventure - a fun, interactive tour on the basics of editing (15 badges to collect en route)
The Teahouse - a friendly and welcoming help desk for new users to seek advice on editing.

Open tasks

cleanup list

Article alerts

Participants

Please feel free to add yourself here, and to indicate any areas of particular interest. Make sure you have created your userpage with a brief description of yourself as well as your user talk page.

Jessica (talk) 12:21, 8/19/2022; project sandbox

Templates

Any templates used by or applicable to the project. (Project banner, infoboxes, navboxes, userboxes, barnstars).

Tagging articles

Specifying the article class quality (e.g. stub, start, b, etc..) and the importance (e.g. top, high, mid, low) will help us keep track of articles that need the most improvement.

Stub sorting

These templates can be placed at the end of articles to help categorize articles that need some work. 'Stubs' are articles that have just a few sentences and need expansion.

Barnstar

An award that can be placed at another user's talk for improving articles.

Articles

Most popular articles

Hot Articles

Review and assessment

Assessment

Adopted from WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology statistics page. The standard system on wikipedia is for each article to be assigned two grades: one for completeness and another for significance. These grades as assigned to talk page. If you have improved an article, you may adjust the entry in the template yourself, or you may simply put a remark in the talk page that improvements have been done.

Quality scale

Class is determined by how well written an article is based on completeness, clarity and referencing. Articles typically are slowly improved up the levels until they reach A-Class, at which point they go through a more thorough review process with strict criteria to become Good Articles (GA) and Featured Articles (FA).

FA — Among the best articles that Wikipedia has to offer. These articles have been through an extensive review process to meet the highest standards.
GA — Articles that have been reviewed and meet the good article standards.
A — Excellent articles of a length suitable for the subject that provide a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic.
B — Articles that contain most of the necessary material but have significant gaps, missing elements or references.
C — Articles that are missing important content, contains irrelevant material, or are poorly referenced.
Start — Articles that have a meaningful amount of good content, but are still weak in many areas, possibly lacking a key element such as a standard infobox.
Stub — Articles that are either very short or rough collections of information that will need much work.

Importance scale

Article significance is based loosely on how aware the ICANN Community is of the topic, and therefore how likely they are to consult ICW.

Top — Subjects that are first closely examined in high school or earlier or that receive significant attention in the media.
High — Subjects that are generally examined at university or are briefly mentioned at the high school level.
Mid — Subjects that are examined at later years of university courses.
Low — Obscure subjects that are important to researchers in the specific field.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{Glossary|
-|note   = This article is neutral, but is [[Sponsorship|sponsored]] by [[Sedo]],<br>the world's largest domain name reseller.<br>You can learn more about their services [http://www.verisigninc.com/?loc=en_US here].
-|logo     = logo_sedo.jpg
-|link  = http://icannwiki.com/index.php/Verisign
-|goldsponsor = ICANNWiki [[Sponsorship|Gold Sponsor]]
-}}
-The '''String Similarity Panel''', also known as '''String Similarity Examiners''', are responsible for determining if there are any similar gTLD strings that will likely and significantly  confuse Internet users. The panel will compare [[new gTLD Program|new gTLD strings]] with any reserved name, existing TLD, requested [[IDN]] [[ccTLD]], and other new gTLD string proposals. It will also examine the IDN tables submitted by applicants. String similarity evaluations are done during the [[Initial Evaluation|initial evaluation]] phase of the new gTLD application review process.<ref>[http://www.new-gtld.ch/faq.php What are the evaluation panels?]</ref> TLD applications deemed similar to one another will be put in contention sets, while those that are deemed too similar to existing TLDs will be eliminated from consideration without any recourse or remediation possible.
+<div style="float:right; margin-left: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; "></div>
+This wikiproject is a group of [[editors]] who aim to improve the reliability and accuracy of pages relating to the topics of the [[DNS]], [[Internet Governance]], the domain name industry, [[Cybersecurity]], [[Web Evolution|Web3 technologies]], and [[IoT]]. If you would like to contribute, please [[#Participants|add yourself as a participant]] in the project, inquire on the [[ICANNWiki:Community_portal|community portal]], and see the [[Articles needed|to-do list]], below.
+== Scope ==
+This [[WikiProject]] is a collaboration to improve articles relating to [[ICANN]] and internet governance more broadly We strive for a diverse editor base and aquatic science topics to help combat [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Criticism_of_content|common problems] on wikis.
+=== Goals ===
+Improve articles within the scope of the project through [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view NPOV] editing.
+'''<big>Article quality goals</big>'''<br>
+== Editing advice ==
+* Helpful [[Wikipedia:Tutorial|tutorial]] on how to edit Wikipedia pages
+*[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia editing for research scientists|Essay]] about editing Wikipedia for research scientists
+*Tips for how to [[Wikipedia:Your first article|create a new article]]
+*[[WP:TWA|The Wikipedia Adventure]] - a fun, interactive tour on the basics of editing (15 badges to collect en route)
+*[[WP:TH|The Teahouse]] - a friendly and welcoming help desk for new users to seek advice on editing.
+== Open tasks ==
+<!-- What *specific* things need to be done.  Lists of articles to be worked on are a good start. -->
+[[cleanup list]] <!-- This runs every Tuesday so may not work until the first Tuesday after this post-->
+===Article alerts===
-On February 25, 2009, the [[ICANN Board]] issued a call for Expressions of Interest (EOI) for individuals interested in becoming string similarity examiners.<ref>[http://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/eoi-string-sim-25feb09-en.pdf ICANN CALL FOR EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST (EOIs) For New gTLD String Similarity Examiners]</ref> ICANN selected [[InterConnect Communications]] in partnership with the University College London to identify string similarity.<ref>[http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/blog/preparing-evaluators-22nov11-en Preparing Evaluators for the New gTLD Application Process]</ref>
+== Participants ==
+Please feel free to add yourself here, and to indicate any areas of particular interest. Make sure you have created your userpage with a brief description of yourself as well as your user talk page.
+<div style="height: 300px; overflow: auto; border:0px; padding: 3px; text-align: left; background-color:#EEEEEE">
+<!-------
+copy and paste the following text including the pound sign and tildes (replace AreaOfInterestHere with your actual interest subject areas): #~~~~; AreaOfInterestHere
+-------->
+#[[User:Jessica|Jessica]] ([[User talk:Jessica|talk]]) 12:21, 8/19/2022; project sandbox
+</div>
+== Templates ==
+Any templates used by or applicable to the project. (Project banner, infoboxes, navboxes, userboxes, barnstars).
+===Tagging articles===
+Specifying the article class quality (e.g. stub, start, b, etc..) and the importance (e.g. top, high, mid, low) will help us keep track of articles that need the most improvement.
+===Stub sorting===
+These templates can be placed at the end of articles to help categorize articles that need some work. 'Stubs' are articles that have just a few sentences and need expansion.
+===Barnstar===
+An award that can be placed at another user's talk for improving articles.
+== Articles ==
+===Most popular articles===
+==Hot Articles==
+== Review and assessment ==
+=== Assessment ===
+Adopted from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology/Statistics|WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology]] statistics page.
+The standard system on wikipedia is for each article to be assigned two grades: one for completeness and another for significance. These grades as assigned to talk page. If you have improved an article, you may adjust the entry in the template yourself, or you may simply put a remark in the talk page that improvements have been done.
+=== Quality scale ===
+Class is determined by how well written an article is based on completeness, clarity and referencing. Articles typically are slowly improved up the levels until they reach '''A-Class''', at which point they go through a more thorough review process with strict criteria to become [[WP:GA|Good Articles]] ('''GA''') and [[WP:FA|Featured Articles]] ('''FA''').
+* '''''FA'''''    — Among the [[WP:FA|best articles]] that Wikipedia has to offer. These articles have been through an extensive [[WP:FAC|review process]] to meet the [[WP:FACR|highest standards]].
+* '''''GA'''''    — Articles that have been [[WP:GAC|reviewed]] and meet the [[WP:GACR|good article standards]].
+* '''''A'''''     — Excellent articles of a length suitable for the subject that provide a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic.
+* '''''B'''''     — Articles that contain most of the necessary material but have significant gaps, missing elements or references.
+* '''''C'''''     — Articles that are missing important content, contains irrelevant material, or are poorly referenced.
+* '''''Start''''' — Articles that have a meaningful amount of good content, but are still weak in many areas, possibly lacking a key element such as a standard [[Wikipedia:List of infoboxes|infobox]].
+* '''''Stub'''''  — Articles that are either very short or rough collections of information that will need much work.
+=== Importance scale ===
+Article significance is based loosely on how aware the ICANN Community is of the topic, and therefore how likely they are to consult ICW.
+* '''''Top'''''  — Subjects that are first closely examined in high school or earlier or that receive significant attention in the media.
+* '''''High''''' — Subjects that are generally examined at university or are briefly mentioned at the high school level.
+* '''''Mid'''''  — Subjects that are examined at later years of university courses.
+* '''''Low'''''  — Obscure subjects that are important to researchers in the specific field.
+=== Peer review ===
-It remains unclear whether or not many of the 3 character new gTLD applications will face a high probability of being deemed too similar to existing ccTLDs. According to industry blog, [[DomainIncite]], 304 of 375 applications for three-letter gTLDs have only one character variance with one or more existing [[ccTLD]]. In total, if a single additional character is enough to create similarity, there are 368 potential ccTLD/gTLD conflicts in the current application round. Furthermore, the visual similarity ratio between ccTLDs and gTLDs, as measured by ICANN's [[SWORD Algorithm]] is generally only a few percentage points lower than in the case of TLDs that have already been rejected on confusing similarity grounds.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/pro/tag/string-similarity-panel/ String Similarity Panel, DomainIncite.com/pro]</ref>
+== Categories ==
+* Add _____ to the categories on your userpage.
-[[ICANN]]'s deadline for the results of the String Similarity Review has been passed and rescheduled at least three times, first in July 2012, then November, 2012, and then January, 2013. It is currently set to be released on March 8th, 2013. There is concern about this date given that formal objections are currently due March 13th.<ref>[https://twitter.com/jintlaw/status/289827051924496384 Status, Jintlaw Twitter.com]Published and Retrieved 11 Jan 2013</ref><ref>[https://twitter.com/gTLDNews/status/289833996639158273 Status, gTLDNews, Twitter.com]Published and Retrieved 11 Jan 2013</ref>
+== Resources ==
-==Sword Algorithm==
-The '''Sword Algorithm''' is the string similarity assessment tool adopted by ICANN to automatically determine if a new gTLD being applied for is not confusingly similar to a reserved name or existing TLD. SWORD, an international IT company expert in verbal search algorithms, developed the tool to automate the process of examining the similarities of proposed and existing TLD strings. The tool is intended to provide an open, objective and predictable mechanism to determine the level of visual likeness between gTLDs.<ref>[https://icann.sword-group.com/algorithm/ String Similarity Assessment Tool]</ref>
-The [[String Similarity Panel]] is responsible in validating the results of the sword algorithm and determining whether the two or more strings really have high a level of visual similarity that will confuse users. The panel ultimately decides if the strings should be put in a contention set or direct contention.<ref>[http://www.gtldstrategy.com/technical-details-vendor-advice/sword-fights-and-string-theory-part-1 SWORD Fights and String Theory: Part 1]</ref>
-The algorithm uses a proprietary software that mathematically calculates the visual similarity of string based on the length of the strings, number of similar letters within sequences of two or more letters, number of similar letters not in sequence, number of dissimilar letters, and length of common prefixes and suffixes if greater than one. The algorithm also uses an image recognition program that supports most common characters in other languages including Arabic, Chinese, Cyrillic, Devanagari, Greek, Japanese, Korean and Latin. It is capable in comparing cross-script strings under the same group pf scripts.<ref>[https://icann.sword-group.com/algorithm/ About This Tool]</ref>
-'''You may utilize the Sword Algorithm [https://icann.sword-group.com/algorithm/ here].'''
-==Criticism==
-Criticism of the String SImilarity Panel includes that it has no review or appeal process; it is not clear whether the intended registration policies will affect delegation, so closed TLDs may be deeemd similar when there will likely be little room for practical overlap and so confusion; it does not build upon the flawed process first undertaken in reviewing [[IDN]] [[ccTLD]]s; and its total lack of transparency and community input.<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130121_a_serious_bug_in_the_similarity_check/ A Serious Bug in The Similarity Check, CircleID.com] Published Jan 21, Retrieved Jan 22</ref>
-===Outside Analysis===
-A November 2012 letter to ICANN, sent by CEO [[Jeffrey Smith]] of [[Commercial Connect]], applicant for [[.shop]], asks ICANN to clarify its String Similarity rules and provides its own analysis. He concludes that there are only 56 of the 966 generic TLDs applied for could be considered distinct and unique, "We reviewed the strings for the 966 applicants and grouped by their meanings. For the purpose of the analysis, we treated the IDN the same as other applications. Of the 966 applications, only 56 appeared to be unique. In other words, there were only 56 words or “meanings” that were applied for[..] For instance, .auto and .car have the same or similar meaning [..] in a much broader scope, .shop, .store, .buy, etc. would confuse the end user as to which TLD would be appropriate for eCommerce."<ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2013/01/30/shop-applicant-tells-icann-on-string-similarity-there-are-only-56-unique-generic-strings/ Shop Applicant Tells ICANN On String Similarity There are Only 56 Unique Generic Strings, TheDomains.com] Published and Retrieved 30 Jan 2012</ref>
-It remains unclear if the meaning/intended audience of the domain will affect string similarity.
-==Related Panels==
-Other Panels and evaluations involved in the Initial Evaluation Process:<ref>[http://www.gtld.com/news/2012/closer-look-new-gtld-evaluation-program Closer Look New gTLD Evaluation Program, gTLD.com]</ref>
-* [[Financial Evaluation Panel]]
-* [[Technical Evaluation Panel]]
-* [[Geographic Names Panel]]
-* [[DNS Stability Panel]]
-* [[Comparative Evaluation Panel]]
-==References==
-{{reflist}}
-[[Category:Glossary]]
-__NOTOC__