While I get your point KP, I think either you or I may have missed the
working of this. I gathered that its not how long its been there, per se,
but how many edits its survived more or less intact. So those physics
articles, while long standing, are as you say rarely edited, and the
software would not put trust into its content.
On 8/6/07, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/6/07, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
On 8/6/07, Tim Starling
<tstarling(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> It's time for us to think about how we want to use this technology.
> There are lots of possibilities beyond the precise design that de
Alfaro
proposes.
Brainstorm away.
....
Also, heavily changed text is not neccessarily
bad. For example, wat
if I hadd realy badd tyops, but would write good (information-rich,
NPOV, referenced) content? People will fix my typos and grammar, and
I'll get a "bad" metric, right? (One can probably filter for the
occasional typo not to influence the metric, though).
Magnus
I don't do really bad typos, but I have a rather bloated writing
style, so my text is often changed, however, the content of the text
is not changed, just some minor copyediting. This would essentially
make me a bad editor (not just the useless troll I was this past
weekend doing edits while working), and I would have just quit
Wikipedia.
Yesterday, while editing the page of Nobel Prize winning physicist I
came across a number of important physics articles that were poorly
written stubs, one that had been on Wikipedia for 3 years with little
editing--this would get a high rating, because it has not been edited
in ages--in spite of glaring syntax and spelling errors and
misinformation.
Chasing off competent editors and giving poor articles high ratings
just because they were on obscure difficult to research subjects isn't
going to make Wikipedia better. This is the sort of thing, quality
ratings, that machines aren't going to really take over for humans
anytime soon.
I don't mind, in general, the idea of quality ratings for editors, if
they take all things into account. Clearly this machine doesn't, and
will and could artificially give "accurate" ratings to things that
merely were obscure.
KP
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l