How about a simple formula, based on what percentage of a user's edits are reverted by other users? (We might tweak this by discounting reverts from a certain class of user.)
For example, if new user Blatheration is reverted 30% of the time, he keeps newbie status. But if new user Jim Dandy has no reverts (except from newbies), promote him to preferred status.
My only worry is that some highly motivated user will figure out a way to hack this system, in order to subvert or destroy it. So at first anyway we should not make it automatic but we could use the statistics when considering the granting of sysop rights.
But the good thing is that tracking each user's "revert count" would enable us to identify edit wars in progress or to identify Edit Warriors. (Yes, of course we'd have to find a way to account for reversions of 'simple vandalism' so this wouldn't "count against" someone.)
Uncle Ed
So you give assholes a way to screw up your status on Wikpedia, shame on you!
Fred
From: "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:18:08 -0500 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] I propose a formula based on reverts
How about a simple formula, based on what percentage of a user's edits are reverted by other users? (We might tweak this by discounting reverts from a certain class of user.)
For example, if new user Blatheration is reverted 30% of the time, he keeps newbie status. But if new user Jim Dandy has no reverts (except from newbies), promote him to preferred status.
My only worry is that some highly motivated user will figure out a way to hack this system, in order to subvert or destroy it. So at first anyway we should not make it automatic but we could use the statistics when considering the granting of sysop rights.
But the good thing is that tracking each user's "revert count" would enable us to identify edit wars in progress or to identify Edit Warriors. (Yes, of course we'd have to find a way to account for reversions of 'simple vandalism' so this wouldn't "count against" someone.)
Uncle Ed _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
How about a simple formula, based on what percentage of a user's edits are reverted by other users? (We might tweak this by discounting reverts from a certain class of user.)
For example, if new user Blatheration is reverted 30% of the time, he keeps newbie status. But if new user Jim Dandy has no reverts (except from newbies), promote him to preferred status.
My only worry is that some highly motivated user will figure out a way to hack this system, in order to subvert or destroy it. So at first anyway we should not make it automatic but we could use the statistics when considering the granting of sysop rights.
But the good thing is that tracking each user's "revert count" would enable us to identify edit wars in progress or to identify Edit Warriors. (Yes, of course we'd have to find a way to account for reversions of 'simple vandalism' so this wouldn't "count against" someone.)
This seems to be more trouble than it's worth. To begin with we would need an official definition of "revert". Strictly speaking it means reinstituting an older version of the article as found in the history of the article. An effective reversion can be accomplished by simply editing an article back to its previous form based on what the person has stored off-list in his own computer.
Ignoring reverts by newbies on others seems to create a circular situation that depends on his having determined that someone is or is not a newby. Simply put, I don't think that this is workable in any practical sense.
Ec
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
How about a simple formula, based on what percentage of a user's edits are reverted by other users? (We might tweak this by discounting reverts from a certain class of user.)
I like this idea. That is, as long as (1) Nothing happens automatically due to these metrics (e.g. you fall under a threshold, you get kicked) (2) They are explicitly marked as what they are and no POV goes into the explanations (e.g. calling a user's contributions/user's reverts ratio his "WikiIQ", or explaining along with the proper rev/conv ratio that it's recommended you stay below 0.1, or else).
I agree because I feel it would match the spirit of the Wikipedia: it's just numbers, and they're true. If you want to interpret them in any way, you're free to. But nobody's shoving these metrics anywhere.
I feel that opposing such metrics is somewhat like opposing the abortion article -- the stuff is already there, we're just showing it. Yes, some losers will definitely try to influence the results, but trying it out would bring information on how to counter such attempts. And there are plenty of statistical ways to deal with such issues. Not to mention the opposite effect: I'm sure some will find improving their metrics a good enough incentive to contribute considerably more, both in quantity and in quality. (I know, it sounds ridiculous, but remember there's a whole army of paying MMORPG players out there with metrics being almost the sole incentive.)
The only thing I'm not sure about is whether the servers will be able to crunch the numbers real-time.
--Gutza
oh, I think we proposed a similar change at the same time!
I was busy and away from the net and just now managed to find some time to write what I wanted to propose:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-February/014199.html
I dont have time to read all replies to your proposal, but maybe we could merge mine and yours to get a more complete system. how do u think?
--Optim
--- "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
How about a simple formula, based on what percentage of a user's edits
...
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
How about a simple formula, based on what percentage of a user's edits are reverted by other users? (We might tweak this by discounting reverts from a certain class of user.)
What is a revert?
Only sysops currently have an actual revert command ("rollback"). Normal users can only load and save older versions of a page; how do you know if it's a revert or just settling a dispute or any number of other things? How do you keep non-vandalism reverts from influencing the statistics?
Additionally, even if this distinction was possible, this suggestion is leaving a rather foul taste in my mouth. People would get even more upset about being reverted than they already do. People would start accusing other people of being trolls solely because they reverted them and worsened their "revert statistics".
Honestly, I don't think this is a good idea.
Timwi