On Dec 21, 2007 11:41 AM, John Erling Blad <john.erling.blad@jeb.no> wrote:

It is wise to make a note about the fact that such systems make it
possible to deduce earlier in the mean that someone is a vandal or not,
but it can't replace a good reader that responds to an error. This
creates the rather annoying situation where a response from a casual
reader should be weighted more than non-beginners, but this makes the
system suceptible to users wanting to skew its metrics on specific users.

John E

Aaron Schulz skrev:

> Right. Also, we need to be clear what we want this to do. It will
> never be great at determining fact-checked material. What it is good
> at is spotting the more dubious stuff, like possible vandalism. This
> makes the possibility of having "most trusted" stable version as
> discussed earlier. Small changes not only can be big in meaning, but
> they still attest to the trust.
>
> If I read a sentence to change some minor thing, I still read it. If a
> wrongly says "he identifies himself as bisexual" or "born in 1885"
> rather than 1985 in a page when I edit, I am going to revert if I
> catch it. Even if just making some grammar/syntax cleanup. So each
> time people look at stuff if still attest to the page a little bit,
> from a vandalism perspective.
>
> The algorithms can be made more strict to catch more general dubious
> info better, but it is not that bad at that already, and the stricter
> it gets, the more it gets under inclusive as to what is considered
> unlikely to be vandalized.
>
> -Aaron Schulz
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:34:47 -0800
> From: luca@dealfaro.org
> To: wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Wikipedia colored according to trust
>
> If you want to pick out the malicious changes, you need to flag
> also small changes.
>
> "Sen. Hillary Clinton did *not* vote in favor of war in Iraq"
>
> "John Doe, born in *1947*"
>
> The ** indicates changes.
>
> I can very well make a system that is insensitive to small
> changes, but then the system would also be insensitive to many
> kinds of malicious tampering, and one of my goals was to make it
> hard for anyone to change without leaving at laest a minimal trace.
>
> So it's a matter of goals, really.
>
> Luca
>
> On Dec 21, 2007 10:01 AM, Jonathan Leybovich <jleybov@gmail.com
> <mailto: jleybov@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> One thing that stood out for me in the small sample of articles I
> examined was the flagging of innocuous changes by casual users to
> correct spelling, grammar, etc. Thus a "nice-to-have" would be a
> "smoothing" algorithm that ignores inconsequential changes
> such as
> spelling corrections, etc. or the reordering of
> semantically-contained
> units of text (for example, reordering the line items in a
> list w/o
> changing the content of any particular line item, etc., or the
> reordering of paragraphs and perhaps even sentences.) I think
> this
> would cover 90% or more of changes that are immaterial to an
> article's
> credibility.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikiquality-l mailing list
> Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> <mailto:Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get the power of Windows + Web with the new Windows Live. Get it now!
> <http://www.windowslive.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_powerofwindows_122007>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikiquality-l mailing list
> Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
>

_______________________________________________
Wikiquality-l mailing list
Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l