Article version validation and import (was Re: [Foundation-l] Most read US newpaper blasts Wikipedia)

[Daniel Mayer]

--- Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:
> The validation system will, no doubt, suffer from two "flaws" in the
> regard of offering reliability:
> 1. Anyone (at least, anyone with a username, if we turn off anons) can
> "validate"

Reads outnumber edits at least 200 to 1. Thus there is a HUGE potential
resource of readers we can draw on to validate articles. I therefore think that
when/if this feature goes live it should allow anon validation. But validators
should also be able to rate the ratings of others (ala 'did you find this
rating useful'). I also assume that comments will be collected. If problems
arise, we could implement a trust matrix system for validators (anons could be
nothing more than lowest rated though; their only effect would be in numbers). 

> 2. Validations will have to be interpreted to simplify them to a
> good/suspicious/bad rating

A simple star system for a few different areas:
1) Completeness
2) Accuracy  
3) Readability

> There is a radical alternative, which I have begun to code a few weeks
> ago. It alters a MediaWiki installation to "import-only", replacing
> editing with an import function for an article version from wikipedia.
> As the imported articles are not editable at all, they do not represent
> a fork, merely a static wikipedia snapshot, alas per article and not for
> the whole wikipedia. Such a system would allow imports only for
> logged-in users, and be invite-only.

Logged-in users should only be able to import the highest-rated version of
articles that have at least x number of validations. That would negate the need
to create a new user class. But if/when that is abused, then we may need to use
a trust matrix system for users and only allow trusted users to import
validated article versions. A hack would be to add a new user class and an
admin-like community approval process. But I don't think that will scale fast
enough.

> Individuals could then chose which "issue" to read, and mirrors could
> decide if they want to go for "slow quality" or "fast unreliability"...

Heck - why not just automatically add a prominent link at the top of each page
that says 'Read the highest-rated version of this article' and mark those
versions in the database so mirrors can choose to just display those versions?
Then there would be no need for manual import. But it still may be a good idea
to have trusted humans doing final reviews of reader-validated content. 

Either way works for me so long as the most up-to-date version of articles are
displayed by default (as is now the case). Logged-in users should be able to
change their preferences so they only see the highest rated version of articles
if available. 

> Yes, a few people (compared to Wikipedia editors) will take a long time
> to check/fix/import all Wikipedia articles. Also, the imported versions
> will soon be outdated compared to Wikipedia. So what? This site will be
> for reliability; Wikipedia is for development and current events coverage.

A validation feature could feed an import queue: Article versions that reach a
certain rating threshold could go into an RC-like list. Then a group of
logged-in users check the queue and give the final go ahead for that article
version to be marked as the 'Highest rated version' for that article.

> I would see such a site working in parallel to the validation feature.
> Some might argue that this would "split out forces", with some people
> validating and some importing. OTOH, a little friendly compedition might
> do good for motivation.

Readers validate and editors import. I don't see how that is splitting out
forces when readers do so little as is.

> Lastly, there is one major reason to deploy such a site: Because it will
> undoubtedly be deployed, by someone, sooner or later; I'd rather it's us
> doing it than some company.

I completely agree. We need to control this.

-- mav



		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Music Unlimited 
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. 
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/