i know this topic keeps reoccuring and so my point may not be very original. it has been said that wikipedia is "work in progress" and will probably continue to to so. on the other hand it ails from the fact that at no given point in time you can be certain to have a 1. consistent , 2. unvandalized and 3. correct throughout wikipedia. (compared to those three points the shortcoming of non-completeness dwindles to almost nothing.) let me draw your attention to the fact that the construction plans for roads to stability - or at least local optima - have long been laid out by physics. heat a dynamic system quickly then let it cool down in a slower and controlled fashion, allowing less and less dramatic changes to take place as time passes. simulated annealing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_annealing) is the magic spell that might work for wikixyzs in a way similar to that in the real world. the rationale behind my suggestion is of course that articles that have matured over time are statistically speaking less likely to improve when large modifications are made than relatively new ones. some of the articles have reached a stage where well-meant editing effectively mucks up the inner structure and logic. what i think reasonable is to lift the threshold for substantial edits, maybe not by limiting access but by asking for more substantial background information from the authors (references, printed, electronic,...) than the simple comment line. there is to much unproven and partially unprovable information in the wp. that could have been prevented long ago by obliging the authors to give references for their information. besides, this task would make it successively harder to simply put established statements upside down. whereas scientific journals have peer review, wp only offers the weak weapons of discussion pages and reverts - by others, mostly admins, i guess. why not confer a little bit more of responsibility to the authors? he/she could be aided by predefined lists, checkboxes, comboboxes (for ref. type, etc.) i find myself increasingly involved in hunting down vandals and their work - partly due to the ease of use wp offers for non-serious edits, too, and i can't help feeling that a larger and larger part of wp keeps a larger and larger part of the community busy with just keeping up the existing standard. comments? best kai (kku)
Kai Kumpf wrote:
i know this topic keeps reoccuring and so my point may not be very original. it has been said that wikipedia is "work in progress" and will probably continue to to so. on the other hand it ails from the fact that at no given point in time you can be certain to have a 1. consistent , 2. unvandalized and 3. correct throughout wikipedia. (compared to those three points the shortcoming of non-completeness dwindles to almost nothing.) let me draw your attention to the fact that the construction plans for roads to stability - or at least local optima - have long been laid out by physics. heat a dynamic system quickly then let it cool down in a slower and controlled fashion, allowing less and less dramatic changes to take place as time passes. simulated annealing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_annealing) is the magic spell that might work for wikixyzs in a way similar to that in the real world. the rationale behind my suggestion is of course that articles that have matured over time are statistically speaking less likely to improve when large modifications are made than relatively new ones. some of the articles have reached a stage where well-meant editing effectively mucks up the inner structure and logic. what i think reasonable is to lift the threshold for substantial edits, maybe not by limiting access but by asking for more substantial background information from the authors (references, printed, electronic,...) than the simple comment line. there is to much unproven and partially unprovable information in the wp. that could have been prevented long ago by obliging the authors to give references for their information. besides, this task would make it successively harder to simply put established statements upside down. whereas scientific journals have peer review, wp only offers the weak weapons of discussion pages and reverts - by others, mostly admins, i guess. why not confer a little bit more of responsibility to the authors? he/she could be aided by predefined lists, checkboxes, comboboxes (for ref. type, etc.) i find myself increasingly involved in hunting down vandals and their work - partly due to the ease of use wp offers for non-serious edits, too, and i can't help feeling that a larger and larger part of wp keeps a larger and larger part of the community busy with just keeping up the existing standard. comments? best kai (kku)
I agree with Kai on this completely; if Wikipedia is about optimization by repeated random/evolutionary/whatever change, simulated annealing is _the_ classic way to achieve stable results.
Once an article had been progressively and slowly "cooled" to a low enough "temperature", it would be effectively frozen. If an article was shown to be seriously wrong, or needed extensive revision, it could always be "warmed up" again, either partially or all they way. The old "cooled" version of the article could be marked in the history as the "previous stable version".
In any case, as stable articles cooled down, they would change less and less often, making the use of the article rating process (where ratings must necessarily refer only to a single version) more and more useful.
Question: what would should a good algorithm for "cooling" and "heating" pages be based on? Article ratings for the last few versions? Consensus in an "articles for cooling" page? Intervention by admins?
Perhaps even some simple automatic heuristic like (for example) _very_ slowly cooling pages that are read repeatedly by a wide range of readers over some significant time period and yet not edited (ie, implicitly "validated" in a tiny way by those readers) during that time? Perhaps articles should slowly "heat up" if not read for some time?
-- Neil
Neil Harris wrote:
I agree with Kai on this completely; if Wikipedia is about optimization by repeated random/evolutionary/whatever change, simulated annealing is _the_ classic way to achieve stable results.
Once an article had been progressively and slowly "cooled" to a low enough "temperature", it would be effectively frozen. If an article was shown to be seriously wrong, or needed extensive revision, it could always be "warmed up" again, either partially or all they way. The old "cooled" version of the article could be marked in the history as the "previous stable version".
In any case, as stable articles cooled down, they would change less and less often, making the use of the article rating process (where ratings must necessarily refer only to a single version) more and more useful.
Question: what would should a good algorithm for "cooling" and "heating" pages be based on? Article ratings for the last few versions? Consensus in an "articles for cooling" page? Intervention by admins?
Perhaps even some simple automatic heuristic like (for example) _very_ slowly cooling pages that are read repeatedly by a wide range of readers over some significant time period and yet not edited (ie, implicitly "validated" in a tiny way by those readers) during that time? Perhaps articles should slowly "heat up" if not read for some time?
I have suggested a statistically determined measure of an articles net rating based on a modified average of all recent individual ratings. The number of individual ratings upon which the value is based would also be noted. A low number of individual ratings would suggest an article in need of attention. This could be because the subject is so obscure that nobody ever pays attention to it, or the page has had so many recent edits that individual ratings have expired. If we add the total number of individual ratings to the data it will be obvious which of the two alternatives applies.
When statistical determinations are made it is important to remember the tendency of data to normalize itself. The individual vote becomes less important in its own right. The votes of trolls, POV pushers and other outlaws have a reduced statistical effect on the net result. I suppose that techniques could be built in to neutralize the effects of sockpuppetry if that is really a problem. Neutralizing the effects of sockpuppets is much better for the health of the community than acrimonious search and punish missions.
Ec
Cooling/heating : generate a crude 'trussst' metric; (# of edits + length of activity) x (simple factor), with (factor) inculding some aspect of community recognition. As an article cools, slowly raise the level of trussst needed to edit it (and vice-versa). If a would-be editor tries to edit the page, artfully redirect to the talk page or a temp subpage, saying "please add your suggested changes or modifications <a>here</a>. If you would like to work on a temporary copy of this [section|article], you can do so <a>here</a>".
SJ
On 11/30/05, Neil Harris usenet@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
Kai Kumpf wrote:
i know this topic keeps reoccuring and so my point may not be very original. it has been said that wikipedia is "work in progress" and will probably continue to to so. on the other hand it ails from the fact that at no given point in time you can be certain to have a 1. consistent , 2. unvandalized and 3. correct throughout wikipedia. (compared to those three points the shortcoming of non-completeness dwindles to almost nothing.) let me draw your attention to the fact that the construction plans for roads to stability - or at least local optima - have long been laid out by physics. heat a dynamic system quickly then let it cool down in a slower and controlled fashion, allowing less and less dramatic changes to take place as time passes. simulated annealing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_annealing) is the magic spell that might work for wikixyzs in a way similar to that in the real world. the rationale behind my suggestion is of course that articles that have matured over time are statistically speaking less likely to improve when large modifications are made than relatively new ones. some of the articles have reached a stage where well-meant editing effectively mucks up the inner structure and logic. what i think reasonable is to lift the threshold for substantial edits, maybe not by limiting access but by asking for more substantial background information from the authors (references, printed, electronic,...) than the simple comment line. there is to much unproven and partially unprovable information in the wp. that could have been prevented long ago by obliging the authors to give references for their information. besides, this task would make it successively harder to simply put established statements upside down. whereas scientific journals have peer review, wp only offers the weak weapons of discussion pages and reverts - by others, mostly admins, i guess. why not confer a little bit more of responsibility to the authors? he/she could be aided by predefined lists, checkboxes, comboboxes (for ref. type, etc.) i find myself increasingly involved in hunting down vandals and their work - partly due to the ease of use wp offers for non-serious edits, too, and i can't help feeling that a larger and larger part of wp keeps a larger and larger part of the community busy with just keeping up the existing standard. comments? best kai (kku)
I agree with Kai on this completely; if Wikipedia is about optimization by repeated random/evolutionary/whatever change, simulated annealing is _the_ classic way to achieve stable results.
Once an article had been progressively and slowly "cooled" to a low enough "temperature", it would be effectively frozen. If an article was shown to be seriously wrong, or needed extensive revision, it could always be "warmed up" again, either partially or all they way. The old "cooled" version of the article could be marked in the history as the "previous stable version".
In any case, as stable articles cooled down, they would change less and less often, making the use of the article rating process (where ratings must necessarily refer only to a single version) more and more useful.
Question: what would should a good algorithm for "cooling" and "heating" pages be based on? Article ratings for the last few versions? Consensus in an "articles for cooling" page? Intervention by admins?
Perhaps even some simple automatic heuristic like (for example) _very_ slowly cooling pages that are read repeatedly by a wide range of readers over some significant time period and yet not edited (ie, implicitly "validated" in a tiny way by those readers) during that time? Perhaps articles should slowly "heat up" if not read for some time?
-- Neil
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- ++SJ
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org