Thanks for the comments!  Yes, we very much wanted a system that
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 do 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.


On 7/30/07, Daniel Mayer <> wrote:

--- Erik Moeller <> wrote:
> The University of Santa Cruz/California has an interesting demo up
> that computes author trust based on whether users' edits are
> kept/improved or reverted. It then highlights passages of the text
> according to the computed reputation of the author who added them:
> NB, this is still very experimental, but it seems promising.
> Luca de Alfaro, who did most of this work, will also be presenting at Wikimania.

Wow - that is even better than the idea of user-driven trust metrics.  On top of that, it
encourages activity we want to encourage; creating content that lasts and is built on. It also
looks like they might have a better diff algorithm than we do.

-- mav

Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.

Wikiquality-l mailing list