From: "Slim Virgin" slimvirgin@gmail.com A kind of "rate this user" thing, as on e-bay?
Ugh. No no. Eeewwww.
I assume people know how this works on eBay. Feedback comments and ratings are wildly, wildly, wildly inflated.
Your average Feedback profile will be 99.9% positive, with comments almost entirely like
"Great communications, payment and response. AAAAA+++++ Thanks for the business" "Excellent ! Super fast contact and immediate PayPal payment. Thank U! AAA+++" "Great eBayer! Will ALWAYS Recommend... Thanks a Million!"
A single "neutral" feedback is an eyebrow-raiser. More than three or four "negatives" that are not from obvious kooks in a thousand entries and if they're not from obvious kooks is a great big red flag. An entry like "Shipping a bit slow, arrived damaged, replacement OK" means "you'd be crazy to deal with this seller."
P. S. (Lest anyone think this is sour grapes, my own feedback profile is 98 positives, no neutrals, no negatives).
On 3/11/07, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
I assume people know how this works on eBay. Feedback comments and ratings are wildly, wildly, wildly inflated.
Indeed, we should caution against a positive/negative system with visible metrics. What I propose is structured, positive-only social commentary that is not transaction-driven but relationship-driven and is not evaluated numerically.
On 3/12/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Indeed, we should caution against a positive/negative system with visible metrics. What I propose is structured, positive-only social commentary that is not transaction-driven but relationship-driven and is not evaluated numerically.
What problem are we trying to solve exactly?
Problem: Magazine interviews Wikipedia editor and believes his falsely claimed credentials. Solution: Caution media to check any credentials claimed by Wikipedia editors.
The NewYorker was silly to publish a claim that their primary source was a "Theology professor" when he didn't even state what university he lectured at.
Steve
On 3/11/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/12/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Indeed, we should caution against a positive/negative system with visible metrics. What I propose is structured, positive-only social commentary that is not transaction-driven but relationship-driven and is not evaluated numerically.
What problem are we trying to solve exactly?
Problem: Magazine interviews Wikipedia editor and believes his falsely claimed credentials. Solution: Caution media to check any credentials claimed by Wikipedia editors.
That's a good question. I regard someone lying about their credentials on their userpage to be a bad thing, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a problem. The fact that people apparently knew about this and did nothing about it might be a problem, but I'm not sure it's something that would happen again, and isn't really something that can be solved anyway.
I regard lots of other things as problems, but none of them are sufficiently related to this incident except as an "I told you so".
Anthony
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/12/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Indeed, we should caution against a positive/negative system with visible metrics. What I propose is structured, positive-only social commentary that is not transaction-driven but relationship-driven and is not evaluated numerically.
What problem are we trying to solve exactly?
Problem: Magazine interviews Wikipedia editor and believes his falsely claimed credentials. Solution: Caution media to check any credentials claimed by Wikipedia editors.
Well, there is also the problem of a Wikipedia administrator writing to professors as a fellow professor. That was pretty bad in my mind, and could have also led to a public black eye even if the media had checked credentials.
For completeness, some also see using false credentials in an editing dispute as a problem. Personally, I haven't yet seen a case where it actually ended up harming the articles.
William
On 11/03/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Well, there is also the problem of a Wikipedia administrator writing to professors as a fellow professor. That was pretty bad in my mind, and could have also led to a public black eye even if the media had checked credentials.
This is a falsehood on the part of the person writing the email. This is not a problem that can be addressed with any sort of credentialing system on the site itself.
For completeness, some also see using false credentials in an editing dispute as a problem. Personally, I haven't yet seen a case where it actually ended up harming the articles.
It's hard enough to get editors to listen to experts when they damn well should be smart enough to. "Actually, the opinion you came to by a process of anal revelation is not in fact as good as the opinion of this here famous expert on the matter." "FUCK YOU I WON'T DO WHAT YOU TELL ME! DELETE THE EXPERT AS NON-NOTABLE!"
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 11/03/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Well, there is also the problem of a Wikipedia administrator writing to professors as a fellow professor. That was pretty bad in my mind, and could have also led to a public black eye even if the media had checked credentials.
This is a falsehood on the part of the person writing the email. This is not a problem that can be addressed with any sort of credentialing system on the site itself.
Well, not entirely. Essjay's letter to professors pointed back to his profile for people to verify his credentials. In theory a credential verification system might have helped some.
Not that I'm for one, particularly; I think the cost/benefit ratio is much worse than for SV's prove-it-to-the-world approach.
It's hard enough to get editors to listen to experts when they damn well should be smart enough to.
No argument there.
William
On 3/11/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 11/03/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Well, there is also the problem of a Wikipedia administrator writing to professors as a fellow professor. That was pretty bad in my mind, and could have also led to a public black eye even if the media had checked credentials.
This is a falsehood on the part of the person writing the email. This is not a problem that can be addressed with any sort of credentialing system on the site itself.
Well, not entirely. Essjay's letter to professors pointed back to his profile for people to verify his credentials. In theory a credential verification system might have helped some.... William
I think this also goes to the issue of who thinks credentials are important and who thinks they are not.
I write to scientists (university professors) all of the time via e-mail, both using my anonymous Wikipedia name, sending a link to my user page, and using my real name, with my real credentials (I'm a naturalist, not a scientist, and edit a natural history newsletter), requesting reprints of various articles for work on Wikipedia with my Wikipedia information, or my newsletter or my research (I'm a student also) or my artwork (I'm an artist) with my real information.
I'm treated the same either way, with my anon Wikipedia account and crappy user page, or with my name, credentials, and links to my work: the scientists politely send me an electronic copy of the article, saying to e-mail them back if I can't open it, adding a few sentences to a paragraph on updated details of the article, or sending me an additional article or references if something is out of date, and encouraging me to write back if I have any further questions.
University professors are not as out of touch with the real world as some may think. They know what Wikipedia is. No scientist the world over, no matter how famous, has ever refused me anything that I needed for work on Wikipedia. This will probably not hold true for all Wikipedia editors, and I have enough access to peer reviewed journals that I haven't asked for a lot of articles. But I have spend a lifetime reading scientific literature and requesting information from professors. I have *never* had a request refused. Scientists communicate their research to the world--it's an almost universal aspect of the profession.
Wikipedia editor is the only credential anyone needs to ineract on behalf of Wikipedia with a university professor. Essjay's creation was for his own ego. Wikipedia went astray in giving any respect to Essjay based on his own self-proclaimed credentials. But the press were the responsible parties who had an obligation to fact check what they printed. I wish people wouldn't inflated themselves. But I think that who people are is of far less importance than the results of their editing on Wikipedia. And the last I can judge with my own OR.
KP
"K P" kpbotany@gmail.com writes: .....
University professors are not as out of touch with the real
world as
some may think. They know what Wikipedia is. No scientist the
world over,
no matter how famous, has ever refused me anything that I needed
for work on
Wikipedia. This will probably not hold true for all Wikipedia
editors, and
I have enough access to peer reviewed journals that I haven't
asked for a
lot of articles. But I have spend a lifetime reading scientific
literature
and requesting information from professors. I have *never* had
a request
refused. Scientists communicate their research to the
world--it's an almost
universal aspect of the profession.
Wikipedia editor is the only credential anyone needs to ineract
on behalf of
Wikipedia with a university professor. Essjay's creation was
for his own
ego. Wikipedia went astray in giving any respect to Essjay
based on his own
self-proclaimed credentials. But the press were the responsible
parties who
had an obligation to fact check what they printed. I wish
people wouldn't
inflated themselves. But I think that who people are is of far
less
importance than the results of their editing on Wikipedia. And
the last I
can judge with my own OR.
KP
I'll second this. In my editing, I've contacted a number of computer scientists or similar persons (like Richard P. Gabriel or Steven D. Carter), and when I've gotten a reply, they have uniformly been helpful and answered my questions (indeed, perhaps more helpful than I deserved).
On 11/03/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
What problem are we trying to solve exactly?
Problem: Magazine interviews Wikipedia editor and believes his falsely claimed credentials. Solution: Caution media to check any credentials claimed by Wikipedia editors.
Well, there is also the problem of a Wikipedia administrator writing to professors as a fellow professor. That was pretty bad in my mind, and could have also led to a public black eye even if the media had checked credentials.
We have a hard enough time stopping Wikipedia administrators writing to professors as "a Wikipedia administrator", much less anything else...
On 11/03/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 3/11/07, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
I assume people know how this works on eBay. Feedback comments and ratings are wildly, wildly, wildly inflated.
Indeed, we should caution against a positive/negative system with visible metrics. What I propose is structured, positive-only social commentary that is not transaction-driven but relationship-driven and is not evaluated numerically.
This sounds a little bit like the [[Wikipedia:Trust network]]. (Which I think I am the only person still using.)
On 12/03/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
This sounds a little bit like the [[Wikipedia:Trust network]].
Of course, this got mentioned in the other half of the thread first before I read it. Sorry. (Yah boo sucks to Gmail's threading.)