On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com>wrote;wrote:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:28 AM, Thomas
Dalton<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
2009/8/31 Brian
<Brian.Mingus(a)colorado.edu>du>:
> I would also point out that competition can be a very healthy thing and
it
> could very well be a motivating tool.
Assuming an algorithm that is
> difficult to game editors might well be very interested in improving
their
> reputation scores. It could even give some
credibility to the
encyclopedia.
Yes, competition is a good motivator, but that is only useful if it is
motivating people to do something desirable. We don't actually want
people to try and avoid being reverted - WP:BOLD is still widely
accepted as a good guideline, isn't it?
Is it not more likely that most long-term editors who have been active
for years have had most of their text mercilessly edited into oblivion
and have very low average "trust" levels? And more recent editors may
have higher trust levels?
Carcharoth
With the disclaimer that I haven't read the paper since the 2006 Wikimania,
no, the algorithm is smarter than that. Simply having your edits overwritten
at some point in the future is not going to detract from the period of time
that your edit lasted. Additionally, if some but not all of your words
persist through rewrites that would contribute to your reputation.