Yes, I think setting the trust uniformly at a certain (high) level once a page has been flagged makes sense. I suppose that should be configurable - some wikis have a very lightweight process (dewiki, IIRC) and others will have a more robust method (enwiki, if it ever decides to get FlaggedRevs). And some, like English Wikibooks, will be somewhere in between (if the sysadmins ever enable it for us). So dewiki should perhaps not have a huge change in trust when a page is sighted. But on enwiki, they will probably want a larger effect on trust, since they will probably have very-highly-trusted users making such judgments. I would certainly like to revisit this issue after English Wikibooks gets some experience with FlaggedRevs. We are currently waiting for it to be enabled. After a month or two of using it we may have a better idea of what would work best here.
Mike
_____
From: wikiquality-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikiquality-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Luca de Alfaro Sent: September 1, 2008 3:25 PM To: Wikimedia Quality Discussions Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] WikiTrust v2 released: reputation andtrustforyour wiki in real-time!
By the way:
It is easy for us to add a mechanism so that when one flags a revision in flaggedrevs, the trust of the revision increases, similarly (pehaps a bit less? we can discuss) as when there is an edit. Originally the difficulty in doing this was that someone could click on "sighted" a lot of times, thus increasing too much the trust of a revision -- additional clicks by the same author on the same revision should not cause additional trust. In the latest version of the code, this has been solved, as we keep track who has caused the trust of the text to raise, and we can discard duplicate clicks.
So if there is concrete interest from a wiki that has flaggedrevs running, and wants to deploy wikitrust, we can make sure the two extensions work together well. The only reason we have not implemented this yet is that I wanted to know more about the concrete interest. Let me know!
Luca
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 11:11 AM, mike.lifeguard mike.lifeguard@gmail.com wrote:
I agree - this is why I think using both an implicit method (trust colouring) *and* an explicit method (flaggedrevs) together will be best for small/slow projects like English Wikibooks etc.
Mike
-----Original Message----- From: wikiquality-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikiquality-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of John Erling Blad Sent: September 1, 2008 12:43 PM To: Wikimedia Quality Discussions Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] WikiTrust v2 released: reputation and trustforyour wiki in real-time!
Jusrt drop a note and I'll post a notice on our signpost. I think it is valuable as a clue as to whats going on in an article, but I also believe it will be circumstances where it might give a false impression of thrustwortyness. Lets see what people say if they have an example and can see for them selves! :D John
Luca de Alfaro skrev:
I tend to think that this may not be a huge problem... but "the proof is in the pudding": our server is now up and running, we are experimenting with some wikis, why don't we try to color a dump of the Norwegian wikipedia and see how the result looks like? I am sure it won't be perfect, and the reasons you cite are the reasons why the tool actually never displays people's reputation value (we don't want visitors to read too much into it). But perhaps the tool will still enable the easy visual detection of recent changes, and unvalidated changes, and perhaps contributors will find this useful.
I downloaded the latest dump I could find (June 2008), and I will color it right away. I am not sure we will install all the extensions required for it to look pretty, and images may or may not work, so this will be a purely experimental setting (all of these things would work if we colored the real Norwegian Wikipedia, it's just that I am not sure I can find the time in these days to install all required extensions). Still, it will give you an idea.
(I haven't implemented yet the code to bring up to date the trust of long-unchanged pages; I will do it).
Luca
2008/8/31 John Erling Blad <john.erling.blad@jeb.no mailto:john.erling.blad@jeb.no>
At no.wp there are now questions about establishing thrust for users within small or closed groups where it is no or very little knowledge outside the group. Such situations will occur very rarely on english, or one of the other large wikis, yet it can occur very easily on smaller communities. It can although happen on a wiki with a large community if the given area of knowledge is sufficiently small. An example is something like tetraploid salmon in fish farming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_farming), where the english community might be able to check if this is meaningful and parhaps also the norwegian community, irish community and chilean community, but what about the polish community? Will they figure out the relations? Will a editor writing about this gain correct trust? Note that the places are known for salmon fish farming, someone in the polish community might now about this because there are fish farming in Poland - just not with salmon. I believe the system in the mean will produce valuable information, but it will not be very accurate without additional measures. John _______________________________________________ Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
_______________________________________________ Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l