On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 4:10 AM, BrianBrian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
<snip>
Is it not more likely that most long-term editors who have been active for years have had most of their text mercilessly edited into oblivion and have very low average "trust" levels? And more recent editors may have higher trust levels?
With the disclaimer that I haven't read the paper since the 2006
Wikimania,
no, the algorithm is smarter than that. Simply having your edits
overwritten
at some point in the future is not going to detract from the period of
time
that your edit lasted. Additionally, if some but not all of your words persist through rewrites that would contribute to your reputation.
If you merely revert vandalism that removes a persistent piece of text, doesn't that unfairly contribute to your reputation as the text continues to persist and the algorithm thinks that anyone who added it was doing so independently?
Carcharoth
Why would it matter? If you did the right thing, thats all that there is to
care about. This is what im worried about, Wikipedia: The RPG getting even more ingrained.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l