On 8/6/07, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
On 8/6/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
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.
....
Also, heavily changed text is not neccessarily bad. For example, wat if I hadd realy badd tyops, but would write good (information-rich, NPOV, referenced) content? People will fix my typos and grammar, and I'll get a "bad" metric, right? (One can probably filter for the occasional typo not to influence the metric, though).
Magnus
I don't do really bad typos, but I have a rather bloated writing style, so my text is often changed, however, the content of the text is not changed, just some minor copyediting. This would essentially make me a bad editor (not just the useless troll I was this past weekend doing edits while working), and I would have just quit Wikipedia.
Yesterday, while editing the page of Nobel Prize winning physicist I came across a number of important physics articles that were poorly written stubs, one that had been on Wikipedia for 3 years with little editing--this would get a high rating, because it has not been edited in ages--in spite of glaring syntax and spelling errors and misinformation.
Chasing off competent editors and giving poor articles high ratings just because they were on obscure difficult to research subjects isn't going to make Wikipedia better. This is the sort of thing, quality ratings, that machines aren't going to really take over for humans anytime soon.
I don't mind, in general, the idea of quality ratings for editors, if they take all things into account. Clearly this machine doesn't, and will and could artificially give "accurate" ratings to things that merely were obscure.
KP