[WikiEN-l] [Wikitech-l] Fwd: Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text

[FT2]

I'd use it in a flash. I often find it helpful when examining an article
(for edit warriors and vandals, or dodgy editorship), to trace back where a
given wording was introduced.

I can also see it would be immensely useful to me, to be able to see which
wordings were being warred over or changed recently and which were more
stable or historically unchanged.

As I also know a number of users, it may further help me in evaluating a
text, to have a quick way ("hover" information) to say "okay, these are
texts introduced by users I know and consider decent responsible editors, so
I don't have to spend time on them and can focus on these sections".

However I would be relying on my own experience and using it as a tool to
assist and help me shortcut doing things I do already, not as a bible of
reliability, a substitute for reliable sources, or as a measure of implicit
trust.

FT2


On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 8:36 PM, FT2<ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> >It's a lot less glamorous, sounds alot less dramatic, doesn't get
> > the dollars - but it's got zero capability of misleading.
>
> To be honest, what exactly is the point of this thing? I've seen this
> kind of thing a couple of times when academics have been doing
> research. But what's the use case? What are users supposed to do with
> the knowledge? Is it important? Should end-users care?
>
> All I can see is a moderately handy tool for editors who do a lot of
> patrolling, to save them a bit of time. Other than that, it just makes
> the page text hard to read, imho.
>
> Or have I missed some radical advancement in the tech?
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>