[WikiEN-l] "Software Weighs Wikipedians' Trustworthiness"

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On 8/6/07, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org> wrote:

> 1) A "blame map". Some might prefer to call it a "credit map" to be more
> polite. This is a data structure that lets you see who is responsible
> for what text. It can be updated on every edit. Having one stored in
> MediaWiki will enable all sorts of applications. Apparently it's
> old-hat, and not the subject of the present research, but it'll be great
> to have an implementation integrated with MediaWiki.
>
> 2) A reputation metric. This is a predictor of how long a given user's
> edits will stay in an article. It's novel, and it's the main topic of de
> Alfaro's research.
>
> These two elements could be used independently in any way we choose.
>

<snip for clarity>


> 2. The value of the metric for individual users is obscured. The only
> access to it is via the reputation-coloured article text. The annotated
> article text has no usernames attached, and the metric is not displayed
> on user pages or the like.
>

Can you clarify this for me. What is there to prevent me from checking
a particular snippet of text that has been edited by only one person, and
seeing that it is a specific hue, and basing my evaluation of his or her
trust metric on that hue?

To be obscured would it not be necessary to only colour text that has
been edited by multiple editors, thus limiting the usefulness?

<snip>

> It's time for us to think about how we want to use this technology.
> There are lots of possibilities beyond the precise design that de Alfaro
> proposes. Brainstorm away.

I have not yet changed back to thinking this may not be useful, but I
think we need more information on the limitations and possible
further improvements that can be made to it. Is there a fuller
description of the underlying formula/algorithm somewhere?


--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]