I agree with you, Aaron. Flagged Revisions by *trusted
users* is indeed
better than automatic trustworthiness evaluation. Ratings by everyone,
probably wouldn't be. But I'd say, following your own words ("It has the
advantage of leading to a burst of pages with "trusted" versions without
adding any real workload whatsoever"), why not having this the default
option if there is no flagged version available (yet)? Perhaps with a note,
shown to people who choose to view stable versions (or to all unlogged
readers, if the stable versions are to be default), similar to the one that
we see when we're consulting an old revision. It seems to me that this is
better than showing the current version if the flagged one doesn't exist, or
is too far away in the revision history. (with the "stable view" enabled,
that is). Also, picking a revision with no "highly dubious" parts sounds a
good approach to me :)
Waldir
On Nov 28, 2007 12:40 AM, Aaron Schulz <jschulz_4587(a)msn.com> wrote:
Flagged Revisions and Article Trust are really apples and oranges. I
have contacted them, and let them know I'd be interested in getting this up
into a stable extension; they are not in competetion.
Anyway, my problem with that article about implicit vs. explicit
metadata is that a)it assumes any random user can rate, b)you are measuring
simple things like interesting/cool/worth reading, and c) you don't care too
much if bad content shows sometimes. The problem is that none of these hold
true here. Flagged Revisions uses Editors/Reviewers, it mainly checks
accuracy, and we don't want high profile pages/living people articles/highly
vandalized pages as well as eventually anything to show up with vandalism.
Going to "George Bush" and seeing a vulva for the infobox is not ever
acceptable (I don't even know if Article Trust rates images), even if the
vandalism is darker orange or whatever.
The Article Trust code looks at the page authors. To a large extent,
this quite good at highlighting the more dubious stuff. On the other hand,
things become less orange with new edits (since it is less likely to be
crap). The downside is that cruft and garbage can get less orange and appear
more valid. This can easily happen with large articles and section editing.
That makes this it very hard to use for quality versions. Flagged Revisions
would be better at that.
Vandalism can take days to clean up. If AT is to be selecting the best
revision, it should trying to check both global average trust of each
revision as well as it's worst parts. This way it could try to pick a
revision with no "highly dubious" parts. Having looked at the article trust
site, I'd have a very hard time demarking what the maximum untrustworthyness
a section can have would be wihout being under or over inclusive. I'd go
with underinclusive. It does seems reasonably doable at least. It has the
advantage of being fully automatic, so there will be a huge number of
articles with a "most trusted" (for lack of a better name) version. It
won't
necessarily be stable, and could be quite outdated though. In fact, even
people who would otherwise have Editor (basic review) rights would have
their changes go to the trusted version on edit. This would eat too much
away at editing incentive if the "most trusted" version was the default if
even experienced users could not directly control it.
So to sum up. Having a link to the "automatically selected most
trustworthy" version seems plausible, as long as it is not the default. It
has the advantage of leading to a burst of pages with "trusted" versions
without adding any real workload whatsoever. The AT team would have to whip
up and test around with some algorithms though.
-Aaron Schulz
----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:29:51 +0000
From: waldir(a)email.com
To: wikiquality-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikiquality-l] Implicit vs Explicit metadata
I am sure this has already been discussed, but just in case, here goes
my two cents:
The post in
http://breasy.com/blog/2007/07/01/implicit-kicks-explicits-ass/
explains why implicit metadata (like Google's
PageRank) are better
than explicit metadata (Like Digg votes).
Making a comparison to Wikimedia, I'd say that Prof. Luca's trust
algorithm is a more reliable way to determine the quality of an
article's text than the Flagged Revision Extension.
However, the point of the latter is to provide a stable version to the
user who chooses that, while the former displays to which degree the
info can be trusted, but still showing the untrusted text.
What I'd like to suggest is the implementation of a filter based on
the trust calculations of Prof. Luca's algorithm, which would use the
editors' calculated reliability to automatically choose to display a
certain revision of an article. It could be implemented in 3 ways:
1. Show the last revision of an article made by an editor with a trust
score bigger than the value that the reader provided. The trusted
editor is implicitly setting a minimum quality flag in the article by
saving a revision without changing other parts of the text. This is
the simpler approach, but it doent prevent untrusted text to show up,
in case the trusted editor leaves untrusted parts of the text
unchanged.
2. Filter the full history. Basically, the idea is to show the parts
of the to the article written by users with a trust score bigger than
the value that the reader provided. This would work like slashdot's
comment filtering system, for example. Evidently, this is the most
complicated approach, since it would require an automated conflict
resolution system which might not be possible.
3. A mixed option could be to try to hide revisions by editors with a
lower trust value than the threshold set. This could be done as far
back in the article history as possible, while a content conflict
isn't found.
Instead of trust values, this could also work by setting the threshold
above unregistered users, or newbies (I think this is approximately
equivalent to accounts younger than 4 days)
Anyway, these are just rough ideas, on which I'd like to hear your
thoughts.
_______________________________________________
Wikiquality-l mailing list
Wikiquality-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
_________________________________________________________________
Put your friends on the big screen with Windows Vista(R) + Windows Live™.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/shop/specialoffers.mspx?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_CPC…
_______________________________________________
Wikiquality-l mailing list
Wikiquality-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
_______________________________________________
Wikiquality-l mailing list
Wikiquality-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org