People does not do this consistently. Usually they flagg revisions as
patrolled if they do't find anything wrong. If they can't establish its
correctness they usually leave it. If they fix the problem it might very
well be that it is vandalized or it might be a spelling error. They may
very well mark it as patrolled after they have fixed the problem.
Baasically, if they mark it as fixed and does nothing it is safe to
increase the thrust. If they do some follow up actions then probably
nothing can be said about the trust. If the revision are left without
any patrolling then also nothing can be said about the trust, but I
think it is possible to say that probably the edit is difficult to
patrol of some reason, whattever that may be.
John
Luca de Alfaro skrev:
Suppose I make an executable that takes, as
parameters, the revision
id being flagged, and the user id doing the flagging. something like:
vote_trusted <revision_id> <user_id>
You could call this e.g. from the php which implements the flagging.
Would this work, i.e., would that php be able to call it?
If it does, then I can think at how to implement it.
One important question: does one flag only the most recent revision of
an article, or do people usually flag older revisions?
I would imagine they flag only the most recent, as if they prefer an
older one, they could first revert to that or fix whatever they don't
like in the revision, then flag it. Is this correct?
Luca
2008/9/1 John Erling Blad <john.erling.blad(a)jeb.no
<mailto:john.erling.blad@jeb.no>>
At no.wp we are running a system for patrolling, whereby a user
marks a
revision as patrolled. This uses the old patrolling solution, and some
added roles. It works pretty well as a simplyfied flaggedrevs.
John
Luca de Alfaro skrev:
By the way:
It is easy for us to add a mechanism so that when one flags a
revision
in flaggedrevs, the trust of the revision
increases, similarly
(pehaps
a bit less? we can discuss) as when there is an
edit.
Originally the difficulty in doing this was that someone could click
on "sighted" a lot of times, thus increasing too much the trust of a
revision -- additional clicks by the same author on the same
revision
should not cause additional trust.
In the latest version of the code, this has been solved, as we keep
track who has caused the trust of the text to raise, and we can
discard duplicate clicks.
So if there is concrete interest from a wiki that has flaggedrevs
running, and wants to deploy wikitrust, we can make sure the two
extensions work together well. The only reason we have not
implemented this yet is that I wanted to know more about the
concrete
interest. Let me know!
Luca
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 11:11 AM, mike.lifeguard
<mike.lifeguard(a)gmail.com <mailto:mike.lifeguard@gmail.com>
<mailto:mike.lifeguard@gmail.com
<mailto:mike.lifeguard@gmail.com>>> wrote:
I agree - this is why I think using both an implicit method
(trust
colouring) *and* an explicit method
(flaggedrevs) together
will be
best for
small/slow projects like English Wikibooks etc.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: wikiquality-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:wikiquality-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org>
<mailto:wikiquality-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:wikiquality-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org>>
[mailto:wikiquality-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:wikiquality-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org>
<mailto:wikiquality-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:wikiquality-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org>>] On Behalf Of
John Erling
Blad
Sent: September 1, 2008 12:43 PM
To: Wikimedia Quality Discussions
Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] WikiTrust v2 released:
reputation and
trustforyour wiki in real-time!
Jusrt drop a note and I'll post a notice on our signpost.
I think it is valuable as a clue as to whats going on in an
article, but
I also believe it will be circumstances where it might give
a false
impression of thrustwortyness.
Lets see what people say if they have an example and can see
for them
selves! :D
John
Luca de Alfaro skrev:
> I tend to think that this may not be a huge problem... but
"the
proof
> is in the pudding": our server is now up and running, we are
> experimenting with some wikis, why don't we try to color a
dump
of the
> Norwegian wikipedia and see how the result looks like? I
am sure it
> won't be perfect, and the reasons
you cite are the reasons
why the
> tool actually never displays
people's reputation value (we
don't
want
> visitors to read too much into it). But perhaps the tool
will still
> enable the easy visual detection of
recent changes, and
unvalidated
> changes, and perhaps contributors will
find this useful.
>
> I downloaded the latest dump I could find (June 2008), and
I will
> color it right away.
> I am not sure we will install all the extensions required
for it to
look
pretty, and images may or may not work, so this will be a
purely
experimental setting (all of these things would
work if we
colored the
real Norwegian Wikipedia, it's just that I am
not sure I can
find the
> time in these days to install all required extensions).
Still, it
> will give you an idea.
>
> (I haven't implemented yet the code to bring up to date
the trust
of
> long-unchanged pages; I will do it).
>
> Luca
>
>
> 2008/8/31 John Erling Blad <john.erling.blad(a)jeb.no
<mailto:john.erling.blad@jeb.no>
<mailto:john.erling.blad@jeb.no
<mailto:john.erling.blad@jeb.no>>
> <mailto:john.erling.blad@jeb.no
<mailto:john.erling.blad@jeb.no> <mailto:john.erling.blad@jeb.no
<mailto:john.erling.blad@jeb.no>>>>
At no.wp there are now questions about establishing thrust
for users
> within small or closed groups where it is no or very
little
knowledge
> outside the group. Such situations will occur very
rarely on
english, or
one of the other large wikis, yet it can occur very easily
on smaller
> communities. It can although happen on a wiki with a large
> community if
> the given area of knowledge is sufficiently small.
>
> An example is something like tetraploid salmon in fish
farming
english
community
might be able to check if this is meaningful and parhaps
also the
> norwegian community, irish community and chilean
community,
but what
about the polish community? Will they figure
out the
relations? Will a
> editor writing about this gain correct trust? Note
that the
places are
> known for salmon fish farming, someone in the polish
community
> might now
> about this because there are fish farming in Poland -
just not
> with salmon.
>
> I believe the system in the mean will produce valuable
> information, but
> it will not be very accurate without additional measures.
>
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikiquality-l mailing list
> Wikiquality-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
<mailto:Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>
>
<mailto:Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
<mailto:Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikiquality-l mailing list
> Wikiquality-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
<mailto:Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>
_______________________________________________
Wikiquality-l mailing list
Wikiquality-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
<mailto:Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Wikiquality-l mailing list
Wikiquality-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
_______________________________________________
Wikiquality-l mailing list
Wikiquality-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Wikiquality-l mailing list
Wikiquality-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l