On 6/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Delirium wrote:
<snip> > Proposal #2: Institute a rating and trust-metric system > --- > Wikipedians rate revisions, perhaps on some scale from "complete crap" > to "I'm an expert in this field and am confident of its accuracy and > high quality". Then there is some way of coming up with a score for > that revision, perhaps based on the trustworthiness of the raters > themselves (determined through some method). Once that's done, the > interface can do things like display the last version of an article over > some score, if any, or a big warning that the article sucks otherwise > (and so on). > > Some pros: Distributed; no duplicated effort; good revisions are marked > good as soon as enough people have vetted them; humans review the > articles, but the "process" itself is done automatically; most articles > will have some information about their quality to present to a reader > > Some cons: Gameing-proof trust metric systems are notoriously hard to > design. <snip>
Ever taken a look at http://advogato.org/trust-metric.html?
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
I'm starting to notice a pattern here....
~maru