1. I take it the darker the red, the newer the text?
It's unclear what
the difference between
'unvetted' and 'trustworthy' is.
"Trustworthy" means that the content has stood the test of previous
editors and has survived for long periods of time whereas "unvetted" has
not. This is intended to support two workflows: determining what
(unvetted) content needs to be reviewed and being cautious around
content that has stood the test of time and other editor's eyes.
2. How sophisticated is the tool? I'm guessing the
algorithm is just
'look back in the history
until the text is no longer there'; does it catch
when a string is
being deleted & reverted often?
The algorithm is designed to take reverts into account in that it keeps
track of words and re-attributes them to their original author if they
are replaced by a revert. The algorithm is based on how long words
survive through the history of an article but is not affected by the
number of times any word has been removed and replaced.
3. At least here, the script overrides my monobook.css
customizations
(green foreground, black
background); any chance of a fix for that?
That would be very difficult to work into the interface. I imagine the
red background would look like CHRISTMAS with your green text. It seems
to me that a better solution would be to give you control of the style
of the whole edit pane (including the gradient). I'll start looking at
that in the next couple days. As I get a better understanding of the
problem space, I'll drop a message on your talk page so that I can know
if my plan will work for you.
-Aaron Halfaker
[[User:EpochFail]]
Gwern Branwen wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Aaron Halfaker
<half0032(a)umn.edu> wrote:
I'm sure many of you caught the news
article(http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/wikitrust/) about
Adler and Alfaro's
research(http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1242572.1242608)
in wiki trustability being applied to live Wikipedia. It just so happens
that I have been working on a similar problem from a completely
different direction during my research and am ready to share this work
with the community. I have designed and implemented a user script
modification that I call HAPPI and am currently running a
non-profit/academic analysis of its usefulness. The script adds a
couple of new controls that will appear over the edit pane. These
controls will allow you to toggle the highlighting of wiki text while
you edit it. If you'd like to give it a try, please see the
documentation page and consent form for more information.
Screenshot:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/37/HAPPI_example.png
Documentation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EpochFail/HAPPI
Consent form:
http://wikipedia.grouplens.org/HAPPI/consent
-Aaron Halfaker
That's very interesting; I'm trying it right now and it looks like it
might be useful. I have a few questions:
1. I take it the darker the red, the newer the text? It's unclear what
the difference between 'unvetted' and 'trustworthy' is.
2. How sophisticated is the tool? I'm guessing the algorithm is just
'look back in the history until the text is no longer there'; does it
catch when a string is being deleted & reverted often?
3. At least here, the script overrides my monobook.css customizations
(green foreground, black background); any chance of a fix for that?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
