I think that kind of weighting is correct as long as it is symmetrical (ie. do-undo -pairs weights approx the same). Clique-building is interesting although when you are able to analyze which ones interacts. Then you can punish people when their friends do bad edits. Its not as bad as it sounds, the reasoning is that often someone writes the article under guidance of some other. You don't want to punish only one user in such situations but both. John E
Luca de Alfaro skrev:
I am not sure I am replying to the correct point, but, the system weighs an author feedback as a function of the reputation of the author. Reputation is "linear" in the sense that new feedback is simply added to the reputation. A user of reputation r gives weight log(1 + r) to hiers feedback. We use this logarithmic scaling to prevent long-time editors from forming a clique that is essentially impervious to feedback from the rest of the community (will this kind of comments get me skinned? :-)
Luca
On Dec 21, 2007 11:41 AM, John Erling Blad <john.erling.blad@jeb.no mailto: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 <mailto:luca@dealfaro.org> > To: wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto: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> > <mailto: 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> > <mailto: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 <mailto:Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l > _______________________________________________ Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l <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