it.wiki è la prima Wikipedia con WikiTrust funzionante "in tempo reale"
(piú o meno): vedi sotto.
Al primo tentativo mi ha ammazzato i template sinottici, ma il fatto che
basti cliccare su una /parola/ per sapere chi l'ha inserita è impagabile
(non possiamo attivare questa funzione dappertutto, intanto? :-p)...
-------- Messaggio Originale --------
Oggetto: [Wikiquality-l] Demos of WikiTrust on some Wikipedias are up
Data: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:14:32 -0700
Da: Luca de Alfaro
Rispondi-a: Wikimedia Quality Discussions
A: Wikimedia Quality Discussions <wikiquality-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
we finally managed to put up some demos of WikiTrust on some Wikipedias,
to start gathering feedback.
WikiTrust (http://wikitrust.soe.ucsc.edu/) is an open-source tool that
computes, for every word of text:
* Who is the author of the word
* In which revision was the word introduced
* How well the word (and the surrounding text) has been revised.
For the latter, we color in orange the background of untrusted text; the
shade of orange gradually turns to white for text of increasing trust
To see the demos, go to
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/11087 and install for
Firefox the WikiTrust add-on. You can then browse the Italian
(it.wikimedia.org <http://it.wikimedia.org>) and Portuguese
(pt.wikimedia.org <http://pt.wikimedia.org>) Wikipedias, and we are
working on adding other Wikipedias to the demo soon.
Some notes on the demo:
We developed the demo to help us test code suited to running at the
Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). But the code does not run there now: the
demo is implemented by polling our servers at UC Santa Cruz to obtain
the text information. This has a few consequences:
* The demo is slow, as it involves a lot of back-and-forth between
WMF and UCSC servers. It would be much faster if it ran at the
* As the code is not running at the WMF, our servers are not
notified when someone edits a page. Thus, when you request
information on a revision, we occasionally tell you that we don't
have the information, and to try again in ten seconds or so. In
the meantime, our server at UCSC fetches from WMF the revision,
and analyzes it. Again, this would not happen if WikiTrust was
running more tightly integrated in the WMF.
* Since we cannot authenticate users (the WMF, not us, is sent the
authentication cookies), we had to turn off a button that enabled
users to vote for the correctness of text (inspired by the work on
flagged revisions: indeed, we could tie the flag to this vote
The purpose of the demo is to help us test the code and experiment, and
feedback is most welcome. Please be tolerant: I am sure there are still
kinks, and we will do our best to iron them out. You can find links to
mailing lists, bug-tracking systems, code, etc at
Some notes on text trust:
Text trust is computed on the basis of a reputation system for Wikipedia
users. Users gain reputation when they make contributions that last in
the system. Thus, new users must do some amount of good work before
they gain reputation. The trust of the text then depends on the
reputation of the user who inserted the text, and on the reputation of
all the users who subsequently revised the text. Text can become fully
trusted only when it has been revised by multiple high-reputation
authors. Thus, WikiTrust highlights changes in articles, and makes it
difficult for authors of malicious changes to cover their tracks.
If you click on a word of text, you are sent to the revision where the
word was inserted. We also can have pop-up balloons that announce the
author of each word, but we thought that this too-obvious proclamation
of who the author is could lead to silly competition for who last
replaced or reworded a sentence.
We also had the option of voting for the validity of a revision, thus
raising its trust, but since our code does not run at the Wikimedia
Foundation (WMF), we have no way of authenticating votes, and this
feature is thus currently inactive.
I hope you enjoy the demo, and I hope this can be a useful instrument
for those who patrol, maintain, and improve Wikipedia pages, as well as
for those who are just visitors.
All the best,
Luca, Bo, and Ian
Wikiquality-l mailing list
Sono stato bloccato da Guidomac
codice blocco: #74011
dopo aver ricevuto
l'ammonizione ho capito ed infatti quello che volevo esprimere l'ho scritto
diversamente. Le polemiche e l'oscuramento di notizie sono Fatti realmente
accaduti e vanno sottolineati. DI sicuro, sottolinearli non è "vandalismo". è
vandalismo cacciare le persone senza neanche fare un momento di discussione.
Questo blocco che ho ricevuto è di parte.
Chiedo di essere subito riammesso e
chiedo la partecipazione di più persone all'aggiornamento della pagina che ha
bisogno di raccontare fatti senza paura del blocco da parte di Guidomac.
Grazie a tutti e scusate il disturbo.