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(a)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(a)dealfaro.org <mailto:luca@dealfaro.org>
To: wikiquality-l(a)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(a)gmail.com
<mailto:jleybov@gmail.com>
<mailto: jleybov(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
<mailto:Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
_______________________________________________
Wikiquality-l mailing list
Wikiquality-l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l