A bit like cryptography? If it needs obscurity to withstand gaming it's worthless?
A metric like "this user's edits are routinely reverted" or "routinely reverted on topic X" might be useful. Ditto a study of words used in the revert edit's summary.
Beyond that I'm not convinced it's feasible to calculate a score for trust, just because editors can edit in many different areas and ways. As an extreme example, a FA editor or project page developer who uses BRD to achieve more quicker, will score very differently from a POV warrior who writes obscure but slightly skewed pages, or a sock user. the page text will show reversion, recreation or aging which is useful... but the author's trust rating will be very variable.
FT2
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:48 AM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
Playing devils advocate, isn't there far too little information available about your average editor? How do you determine at a glance the reputation of an editor whose edits you are reviewing, or with whom you are having a conversation? Further, since the full history dump is publicly available and the given algorithm is just one of many related measures that could be computed, is it pointless to try and stop the information from being released? Lastly, in the interest of transparency should the information not be made available? Shouldn't the goal be to create an algorithm that can't be gamed? It may actually be the case that this one is not very subject to manipulation. The authors are very astute and it would take an awful lot of effort.