Wait, no, it applies perfectly, reverting vandals wouldn't make the 'content' you add elsewhere more trustworthy, it doesnt show you know what you're talking about, it shows you care about the encyclopedia. This does not always equate with being able to recite the laws of thermodynamics.
On 8/5/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Having trawled throught their articles via the random page button, it very much seems to me like their idea is the classic case of something that appears cool on paper, but in practise doesn't pan out.
The articles which I perused, I couldn't (with my Mark I eyball) discern any useful difference between the text that was painted pink and the text that wasn't.
It is of course conceivable that I myself wouldn't know the difference between crap content and trustworthy content, but I seriously doubt it.
While this approach may have it's merits, I think the parameters need to be tweaked and certainly expanded substantially before any realistically significant results can be gleaned from such sifting.
Specifically I would note that a user who habitually tends after multiple commonly vandalized articles, would get a high "un-trustworthiness" rating... not ideal as a metric, so mechanically applied.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l