--- Luca de Alfaro <luca(a)soe.ucsc.edu> wrote:
Thanks for the comments! Yes, we very much wanted a
- does not change the day-to-day Wikipedia experience (it worked so
well so far, let's not change what worked; would people be put off, or
strange behaviors encouraged, by user-to-user ratings?),
- encourages lasting content, but does not punish people whose content
is rewritten/improved: people are mainly punished for reversions or partial
- does not display reputation associated with authors (newbies to the
Wikipedia provide a good share of the factual content, as they include many
domain experts, so it's important not to put them off)
- but still gives useful information to visitors on the trust of text
(and lots more can be done, e.g., getting on request the last high
trust version, ...)
As you point out, getting text diff to work is not trivial, and it took us a
long time to get something we liked; we had to write it from scratch... the
idea is given in the WWW07 paper: a greedy algorithm, that matches longest
substrings first, giving however a bias in favor of substrings that occur in
the same relative position in the pages. Moreover, we keep track not only
of the text present in a page (the "live" text), but also of the text that
used to be present, but has been deleted (the "dead" text). If you don't
this, reverts (and partial reverts) are not dealt with correctly.
We think that even better can be done, in fact (everything can always be
improved), but we haven't had a chance yet.
Please continue your work! :) Also, will UCSC allow you to license your work under the GPL
compatible license? It would be a shame if your work could not be incorporated into
Oh - I'm sure you already thought of this, but please make sure this tool only works
on the main
namespace since that is where all the articles (content) hang out. Your analysis will be
it looks at non-article content since much of which tends to be preserved as is and
modification for years.
I also dont want to reward those who do almost all their editing outside of articles by
their edits an incorrectly higher rank. We really need to encourage editing of content,
arguing on talk and policy pages.
Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search