There is no need for a "perfect" system and if it is too hard to do it automatically, then don't. A manual system where a group of reviewers assign badges to major contributors of good/featured articles could be an option, since there are not that many and usually for human reviewers it is quite clear which users that have contributed the most to an article. In a way this is how it is already happening now, users list in their user pages "their" good or featured articles. This might be also a hint for the Editor Engagement Group, since this kind of practice reflects that it is somewhat important for editors to list their successes in their user pages even if they have to go through the effort of doing it manually.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:27 AM, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
The approximate score will with accurate edit distance give two equal contributors in the first case, it will credit A with all edits if a limit is set on tracking of minor edits that is anything above zero with no edits on B, and it will credit the last of two editors if last contributions wins. There are no really good approximations, and t doesn't help to use "percentages".
Best I know of is dimension reduction and measuring path length, but that too fail for some combos of vandalism/reverts.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 5:08 PM, David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:58 AM, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
We don't use votes... ;)
I think Lydia was referring to the votes on the bugzilla bug page, 14
votes
so far :)
If we forget about the implementation of badges and discuss the contributions; there are no single correct way to weight contributions. Assume some user A write N characters as a continuous string, and some user B writes the same number of characters spread out over a text changing N words into something else. Those two edits can have the same edit distance but still have a completely different entropy. In the last case, who "owns" the changed words? The original author or the later one? This isn't obvious at all.
I thought Wikitrust [1] and others [2] had already addressed this issues? In any case there is no need for an "exact" attribution, an approximate percentage score would be a good enough solution for practical purposes.
[1] http://www.wikitrust.net/ [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Mshavlovsky/Authorship_Tracking _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l