Daniel Mayer wrote:
> --- Magnus Manske <magnus.manske(a)web.de> wrote:
>>The validation system will, no doubt, suffer from two "flaws" in the
>>regard of offering reliability:
>>1. Anyone (at least, anyone with a username, if we turn off anons) can
>>"validate"
> Reads outnumber edits at least 200 to 1. Thus there is a HUGE potential
> resource of readers we can draw on to validate articles. I therefore think that
> when/if this feature goes live it should allow anon validation.
Absolutely. Remember, we're just gathering the data at this stage, so we
don't want to restrict the pool unnecessarily. We can decide what
applications make sense later. We'd probably separate the anon responses
from the logged-in responses, but the anon responses are the reading
public who made us top-40.
> But validators
> should also be able to rate the ratings of others (ala 'did you find this
> rating useful'). I also assume that comments will be collected. If problems
> arise, we could implement a trust matrix system for validators (anons could be
> nothing more than lowest rated though; their only effect would be in numbers).
Nice idea - please put a note on [[m:Article validation possible
problems]] :-)
>>2. Validations will have to be interpreted to simplify them to a
>>good/suspicious/bad rating
> A simple star system for a few different areas:
> 1) Completeness
> 2) Accuracy
> 3) Readability
The current [[m:En validation topics]] is reminiscent of the
[[:en:Oxford Capacity Analysis]] ... but I'm sure the
number of questions can be cut for the next round, seeing which ones
actually get responses usably.
>>There is a radical alternative, which I have begun to code a few weeks
>>ago. It alters a MediaWiki installation to "import-only", replacing
>>editing with an import function for an article version from wikipedia.
>>As the imported articles are not editable at all, they do not represent
>>a fork, merely a static wikipedia snapshot, alas per article and not for
>>the whole wikipedia. Such a system would allow imports only for
>>logged-in users, and be invite-only.
> Logged-in users should only be able to import the highest-rated version of
> articles that have at least x number of validations. That would negate the need
> to create a new user class. But if/when that is abused, then we may need to use
> a trust matrix system for users and only allow trusted users to import
> validated article versions. A hack would be to add a new user class and an
> admin-like community approval process. But I don't think that will scale fast
> enough.
This is a bit like [[:en:Wikipedia:Good articles]]. Such a read-only
wiki (if that's not too oxymoronic) would be a good place to put the
stable "1.0" version.
>>Individuals could then chose which "issue" to read, and mirrors could
>>decide if they want to go for "slow quality" or "fast unreliability"...
> Heck - why not just automatically add a prominent link at the top of each page
> that says 'Read the highest-rated version of this article' and mark those
> versions in the database so mirrors can choose to just display those versions?
> Then there would be no need for manual import. But it still may be a good idea
> to have trusted humans doing final reviews of reader-validated content.
I'm beginning to think we need to start [[m:Article validation possible
applications]] - or you could go now and do so, starting with the above!
> Either way works for me so long as the most up-to-date version of articles are
> displayed by default (as is now the case). Logged-in users should be able to
> change their preferences so they only see the highest rated version of articles
> if available.
This is similar to the 10-minute delay idea - where logged-in users get
the current version (with goatse, MR HENDERSON IS GAY, etc) and anons
get the delayed version.
>>Yes, a few people (compared to Wikipedia editors) will take a long time
>>to check/fix/import all Wikipedia articles. Also, the imported versions
>>will soon be outdated compared to Wikipedia. So what? This site will be
>>for reliability; Wikipedia is for development and current events coverage.
> A validation feature could feed an import queue: Article versions that reach a
> certain rating threshold could go into an RC-like list. Then a group of
> logged-in users check the queue and give the final go ahead for that article
> version to be marked as the 'Highest rated version' for that article.
Please add to [[m:Article validation possible applications]]!
>>I would see such a site working in parallel to the validation feature.
>>Some might argue that this would "split out forces", with some people
>>validating and some importing. OTOH, a little friendly compedition might
>>do good for motivation.
> Readers validate and editors import. I don't see how that is splitting out
> forces when readers do so little as is.
Volunteers will do what they damn well please. More things to do is not
a problem - the volunteers will choose to do whatever interests them
and/or they feel is important.
>>Lastly, there is one major reason to deploy such a site: Because it will
>>undoubtedly be deployed, by someone, sooner or later; I'd rather it's us
>>doing it than some company.
> I completely agree. We need to control this.
I think we'll do fine *if* we continue to do what makes sense for the
wiki, the community and the resulting article base without being spooked
by our popularity.
[wikien-l added back to cc:]
- d.
