ORES/Issues/Edit quality

This page will eventually document known issues with "edit quality" models deployed by ORES. For now, see our old page on Meta m:Objective Revision Evaluation Service/Issues/Edit quality.

To file a report, append the following template to a section named for your wiki:

{{misclassification report
 | type = <!-- false-positive or true-positive -->
 | wiki = <!-- enwiki for English Wikipedia, eswiki for Spanish Wikipedia, etc. -->
 | revid = <!-- the revid that was scored -->
 | model = <!-- the model with the problematic classification (e.g. "damaging")
 | score = <!-- ORES prediction -->
 | comment = <!-- Description of the problem -->
 | resolved = <!-- To be filed once resolved -->
}}

Finnish Wikipedia

Errors false postives (as good):

• w:fi:Special:Diff/17434788 (typos, goodfaith = 1; damaging = 0.007)
• w:fi:Special:Diff/17468829 (asdaf vandalism, goodfaith = 1; damaging = 0.01)

--Zache (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia

• false-positive (diff) damaging: 87%: The edit is not bad, but was highlighted as likely to be vandalism. --MarcoAurelio (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Spanish Wikibooks

• false-positive (diff) damaging: 74%: actually a good edit; note that the difflink in the template isn't working, but <https://es.wikibooks.org/?diff=349644> will. MarcoAurelio (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
• false positive: b:es:Special:Diff/349925 (75% damaging); good edit. --MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
• false positive: https://es.wikibooks.org/?diff=350153; good edit. MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)