An edit can be made by a very high rated editor and still be completely
in error. Very often this happens because the editor is biased on the
matter, or because he or she is to self confident due to excellence in
related fields of expertise. If a rating system could use multiple
reviewers it will probably rate contributions more correctly.
Contributions _should_ be rated by several persons, and they _should_ be
identified as diferent. This can be done by using the IP-adress and an
unique cookie identifier.
I guess the "top trust authors essentially vote for it by leaving it
there" means that authors are given thrust metrics and that they don't
have to do any manual interfering except reading the article to accept
it. In such a situation it is necessary to verify that they do in fact
read the article.
It is also possible to adjust the number off necessary known voters by
tracking all users, and counting each reader as a positive reader-vote.
If the number of readers are small the known voters must go up to
adjust. If the numbers of readers are very high they can be counted as
unknown voters with a very small correcting factor.
If a known voter goes against the contribution he should have a rather
high impact compared to pro-votes, and it should lock reader-votes. This
comes from the fact that contributors isn't very likely to air public
criticism. I'm not sure how this will be if the voting isn't public,
perhaps more users will vote against contributions but I doubt it.
Luca de Alfaro skrev:
In the trust algorithm I am implementing with my
Ian Pye and Bo Adler), text can gain top trust only when top trust
authors essentially vote for it by leaving it there, so there is not
so much difference in the "voting" part wrt flagged revisions. The
main difference is that in our algorithm, the text that is unchanged
inherits the trust from the text in the previous revision --- no need
for re-voting. The algorithm has been described in a techrep
This week, we will open access to a demo of the whole Wikipedia, as of
its February 6, 2007, snapshot, colored for trust. We are now working
towards making a "live" real-time version, so that revisions can be
colored as soon as they are created.
Currently, people can "vote" for the accuracy of text only by leaving
it unchanged during an edit. We plan, for the live implementation, to
give an "I agree with it" button, which enables people to vote for the
accuracy of text without the need for editing it.
We have also considered selecting as "stable" revisions revisions that
are both recent, and of high trust. We agree with the original poster
that this may have some advantages wrt flagged revisions:
* No need to explicitly spend time flagging (there are millions of
pages); editor time can be used for editing or contributing.
* Flagging pages is time consuming, and re-flagging pages after
they change is even more so. In our algorithm, there is no need
for re-flagging. If a high-trust page is subject to
modifications, and these modifications are approved or left in
place by high-reputation authors (and all editors are
high-reputation), the newer version is automatically selected,
without need for explicit re-flagging.
* As the trust algorithm is automatic, there won't be the problem
of flagged revisions becoming outdated with respect to the most
recent revision: if many authors (including some high-reputation
ones) agree with a recent revision, the recent revision will
automatically become high trust, and thus selected.
* Our algorithm actually requires the consensus, accumulated
through revisions, of more than one high-reputation author, to
label text as high trust. A rogue high-reputation editor cannot
single-handedly create high-trust text.
When the demo will be available later this week, you will be able to
judge whether you would like to select recent revisions that are of
high trust. The algorithm we have now is not perfect, and we are
considering improvements (we will update the demo when we have such
improvements), but in general we share the opinion of the original
poster: an automatic method for flagging revisions can be more
accurate (preventing flagged revisions from becoming out of date), and
less painful (no need to spend time flagging).
On Dec 2, 2007 7:32 AM, Waldir Pimenta <waldir(a)email.com
I agree with you, Aaron. Flagged Revisions by *trusted users* is
indeed better than automatic trustworthiness evaluation. Ratings
by everyone, probably wouldn't be. But I'd say, following your own
words ("It has the advantage of leading to a burst of pages with
"trusted" versions without adding any real workload whatsoever"),
why not having this the default option if there is no flagged
version available (yet)? Perhaps with a note, shown to people who
choose to view stable versions (or to all unlogged readers, if the
stable versions are to be default), similar to the one that we see
when we're consulting an old revision. It seems to me that this is
better than showing the current version if the flagged one doesn't
exist, or is too far away in the revision history. (with the
"stable view" enabled, that is). Also, picking a revision with no
"highly dubious" parts sounds a good approach to me :)
On Nov 28, 2007 12:40 AM, Aaron Schulz <jschulz_4587(a)msn.com
Flagged Revisions and Article Trust are really apples and
oranges. I have contacted them, and let them know I'd be
interested in getting this up into a stable extension; they
are not in competetion.
Anyway, my problem with that article about implicit vs.
explicit metadata is that a)it assumes any random user can
rate, b)you are measuring simple things like
interesting/cool/worth reading, and c) you don't care too much
if bad content shows sometimes. The problem is that none of
these hold true here. Flagged Revisions uses
Editors/Reviewers, it mainly checks accuracy, and we don't
want high profile pages/living people articles/highly
vandalized pages as well as eventually anything to show up
with vandalism. Going to "George Bush" and seeing a vulva for
the infobox is not ever acceptable (I don't even know if
Article Trust rates images), even if the vandalism is darker
orange or whatever.
The Article Trust code looks at the page authors. To a large
extent, this quite good at highlighting the more dubious
stuff. On the other hand, things become less orange with new
edits (since it is less likely to be crap). The downside is
that cruft and garbage can get less orange and appear more
valid. This can easily happen with large articles and section
editing. That makes this it very hard to use for quality
versions. Flagged Revisions would be better at that.
Vandalism can take days to clean up. If AT is to be selecting
the best revision, it should trying to check both global
average trust of each revision as well as it's worst parts.
This way it could try to pick a revision with no "highly
dubious" parts. Having looked at the article trust site, I'd
have a very hard time demarking what the maximum
untrustworthyness a section can have would be wihout being
under or over inclusive. I'd go with underinclusive. It does
seems reasonably doable at least. It has the advantage of
being fully automatic, so there will be a huge number of
articles with a "most trusted" (for lack of a better name)
version. It won't necessarily be stable, and could be quite
outdated though. In fact, even people who would otherwise have
Editor (basic review) rights would have their changes go to
the trusted version on edit. This would eat too much away at
editing incentive if the "most trusted" version was the
default if even experienced users could not directly control it.
So to sum up. Having a link to the "automatically selected
most trustworthy" version seems plausible, as long as it is
not the default. It has the advantage of leading to a burst of
pages with "trusted" versions without adding any real workload
whatsoever. The AT team would have to whip up and test around
with some algorithms though.
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:29:51 +0000
From: waldir(a)email.com <mailto:email@example.com>
Subject: [Wikiquality-l] Implicit vs Explicit
I am sure this has already been discussed, but just in case,
my two cents:
The post in
explains why implicit metadata (like Google's
than explicit metadata (Like Digg votes).
Making a comparison to Wikimedia, I'd say that Prof. Luca's
algorithm is a more reliable way to determine the
quality of an
article's text than the Flagged Revision Extension.
However, the point of the latter is to provide a stable
version to the
user who chooses that, while the former displays
info can be trusted, but still showing the
What I'd like to suggest is the implementation of a filter
the trust calculations of Prof. Luca's
would use the
editors' calculated reliability to
automatically choose to
certain revision of an article. It could be
implemented in 3
1. Show the last revision of an article made by an editor
with a trust
score bigger than the value that the reader
editor is implicitly setting a minimum quality
flag in the
saving a revision without changing other parts of
the simpler approach, but it doent prevent
untrusted text to
in case the trusted editor leaves untrusted parts
of the text
2. Filter the full history. Basically, the idea is to show
of the to the article written by users with a
the value that the reader provided. This would
comment filtering system, for example. Evidently,
complicated approach, since it would require an
resolution system which might not be possible.
3. A mixed option could be to try to hide revisions by
editors with a
lower trust value than the threshold set. This
could be done
back in the article history as possible, while a
Instead of trust values, this could also work by setting the
above unregistered users, or newbies (I think
equivalent to accounts younger than 4 days)
Anyway, these are just rough ideas, on which I'd like to
Wikiquality-l mailing list
Put your friends on the big screen with Windows Vista® +
Wikiquality-l mailing list
Wikiquality-l mailing list
Wikiquality-l mailing list