I agree that we very rarely misidentify vandalism.
Where there is a dichotomy between quality and openness is in our handling
of new unsourced content.
There are no easy solutions here, but I would acknowledge both that a
significant proportion of new unsourced content is good faith, and also
that those who revert much of it on sight are often doing the right thing.
One difficulty for the casual observer is how do you quickly tell the
difference between someone who knows a subject that you don't and is
rejecting an unsourced and implausible edit, as opposed to someone who is
as ignorant of a subject as you and is rejecting an unsourced edit from
someone who actually knows their stuff and was trying to improve wikipedia?
Jonathan
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 16:34, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Bowen, after reading your project proposal I have a
few questions and
concerns.
You mention a perceived tension between protecting newcomers and protecting
the quality of content. I am wondering whether that is a false dichotomy.
In my experience, test edits and blatant vandalism usually look different
from mistakes from good faith editors.
There is a feature that allows users to adjust ORES-supported edit scoring
in our watchlists and Recdent Changes:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_Review_Improvements/New_filters_for_edi…
.
Have you tested this feature? How would your research be useful for that
feature's future development?
I think that ORES is supposed to aid human judgment, not to substitute for
human judgment. How certain are you that "ORES applications will play a
role in drawing a line between acceptable freestyle edits and editing
policies in standard."? There may well be some human patrollers who adjust
their definitions for vandalism based on ORES recommendations, but I think
that you would want to know to what extent ORES has that effect.
I would also like to mention that Wikipedia policies and guidelines, like
offline human laws and customs, may change over time, may have varying
interpretations, and may have varying degrees of adherence among the
populace.
Thanks for your interest in studying ORES. I am glad that you are
collaborating with Aaron.
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018, 7:08 AM Bowen Yu <bowen-yu(a)umn.edu> wrote:
Hello,
ORES has been out and served for the Wikipedia community for a while, for
the purpose such as counter-vandalism. Having seen the wide usage and
effectiveness of ORES in the community, we'd like to continue working on
ORES development. We plan to improve and redesign ORES algorithms by
incorporating feedbacks of all the stakeholders involved in the entire
ORES
ecosystem, such as ORES application developers,
ORES application
operators,
etc. We want to understand their concerns and
values, and come up with
effective algorithmic designs that can balance trade-offs and mitigate
potential conflicts of interests (such as edit quality control v.s.
newcomer protection) to further improve ORES performance.
We will work with Aaron Halfaker and his team to make improvements on
ORES
quality control models, and identify its
limitations. Here is the project
proposal on Meta-Wiki
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Applying_Value-Sensitive_Algorithm…
.
If you are interested or have any thoughts, please feel free to reach out
to me. Thanks!
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
Pine
(
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l