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?
Sometimes. However, on new page patrol, I'll sometimes completely
rewrite a page, both for practice and because I see an inkling of
potential in a page that would normally be speedily deleted via SNOW
via AfD in a heartbeat. In other words, a well-meaning contributor
ALREADY can't be trusted...according to a piece of software.
Emily
On Aug 30, 2009, at 10:08 PM, Carcharoth 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
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l