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?
Sometimes. However, on new page patrol, I'll sometimes completely rewrite a page, both for practice and because I see an inkling of potential in a page that would normally be speedily deleted via SNOW via AfD in a heartbeat. In other words, a well-meaning contributor ALREADY can't be trusted...according to a piece of software.
Emily On Aug 30, 2009, at 10:08 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:28 AM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/31 Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu:
I would also point out that competition can be a very healthy thing and it could very well be a motivating tool. Assuming an algorithm that is difficult to game editors might well be very interested in improving their reputation scores. It could even give some credibility to the encyclopedia.
Yes, competition is a good motivator, but that is only useful if it is motivating people to do something desirable. We don't actually want people to try and avoid being reverted - WP:BOLD is still widely accepted as a good guideline, isn't it?
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?
Carcharoth
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l