On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:31 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
If you have questions like that you should probably look into the website and the paper. I think that you'll find they realized most of these issues and incorporated them into the algo. They already detect reverts so it doesn't make sense to punish the reverter.