Dear All, <br><br>I have been following the various threads on tagged revisions. <br>As many of you know, we have been developing a trust coloring of the text of Wikipedia articles. The trust value of a word depends on the computed reputation of the author of the text, as well as on the reputations of all visitors to the page; for more information, see
<a href="http://trust.cse.ucsc.edu/">http://trust.cse.ucsc.edu/</a> where a demo is also available. <br><br>In a short time, we will have new (we hope better) version of the demo out, and we will ask for your feedback; we plan by the end of October to have a demo with all the English Wikipedia, as of the Feb 6 2007 dump (the last complete one), colored. We are still a few months away from doing the coloring for an on-line, up-to-date, version of the Wikipedia, but we are working towards that goal.
<br><br>It may be fun to start thinking at how tagged revisions and trust coloring may fit together. My impression is that one would be able to get something superior to either of them separately. For instance: <br><ul>
<li>If an article lacks a manually tagged revision, one could select as "stable" revision a recent revision where as little text as possible is marked low trust (orange background). <br></li><li>Currenly, text becomes more trusted due to edits: if one edits a paragraph, one lends a bit of her/his own reputation to the paragraph (on the assumption that one reads the paragraph she/he is editing). A mechanism similar to trusted revisions would enable users to say "I agree with this paragraph and I have checked it" without need for editing it.
<br></li><li>If a manually tagged revision becomes quite old with respect to the most recent revision (we can measure age both in terms of edit distance and in terms of n. of intervening revisions), we could detect it, and offer instead of the automatically tagged revision, a revision that is more recent, and with no (or as little as possible) low-trust text.
<br></li><li>We could monitor articles where the tagged revision becomes old (as above), and good candidate revisions are available later, and alert people in the "watch list" of the article, so that they might consider going to the article and tagging a newer revision.
<br></li></ul>These are just ideas that came on top of my mind; I am curious to know which other suggestions or thoughts you might have. As I said, we are still more than a month away from a version of trust coloring that works for the up-to-date wikipedia, but since we are thinking of how to architect the system, it might be worth to think at how it fits with tagged revisions...
<br><br>Another issue is this: might it be that, once the trust coloring is available, the need for showing tagged revisions by default is lessened? If a trust coloring becomes only one click away, perhaps it is the trust-colored and tagged revisions that should be available on demand, and the up-to-date revision should be shown as default, as it has been so far?
<br><br>I am very interested in your comments... <br>Best regards, <br><br>Luca<br><br>