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

[Emily Monroe]

> ... and then, when the claim proves to be false, become angry and go  
> after the Foundation?  Not necessarily legally, though....  I fear  
> that if they make an assumption "this text is highlighted as high  
> trust, so it can be trusted", and are told that this is the meaning  
> on a help page, we could be liable.

Yet another one of my fears.

Emily
On Sep 1, 2009, at 8:25 AM, Nathan Russell wrote:

> I think there's a real risk here, to be even more blunt.
>
> Calling it a trust system risks someone looking at a piece of text and
> saying "oh, look, this is trusted, so i can
> -rely on this as advice before doing something dangerous/in making a
> medical decision/etc"
> -use this as my sole source in writing my college paper"
> -take for granted the claim this text makes that a living person
> cheated on his spouse (or worse possibilities"
> -assume this means WP as a group/the foundation itself makes the claim
> that *I* cheated on someone"
> ... and then, when the claim proves to be false, become angry and go
> after the Foundation?  Not necessarily legally, though....  I fear
> that if they make an assumption "this text is highlighted as high
> trust, so it can be trusted", and are told that this is the meaning on
> a help page, we could be liable.
>
> Nathan
>
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 6:36 AM, FT2<ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think there's a terminology issue.
>>
>> We cannot refer to this as a "trust" system, however "Wikitrust"  
>> brands it.
>> We just can't. It misleads too many, and implies too much.
>>
>> Call it a "text tracing system" or "a gadget to highlight text  
>> origins"
>> instead. It's a lot less glamorous, sounds alot less dramatic,  
>> doesn't get
>> the dollars - but it's got zero capability of misleading.
>>
>> FT2
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:37 PM, James Alexander  
>> <jamesofur at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> How would the blame maps work with people editing around  
>>> vandalism? For
>>> example someone either blanks the page or does extensive vandalism  
>>> to it
>>> (especially over the course of a couple days or a couple users). I  
>>> would
>>> imagine it would be fairly easy if the bad contributions just got
>>> rolledback
>>> but would the old blamemaps still be reinstated if someone went in  
>>> and
>>> manually copy/pasted the old version (or something very close) in  
>>> or would
>>> the system count it as a new contribution?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:12 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2009/8/31 David Goodman <dgoodmanny at gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> I am a little concerned that we are adopting a metric into our
>>>>> interface without adequate testing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It appears we're not and Wired completely jumped the gun. There  
>>>> is no
>>>> timeframe for release of this thing even as an optional extra.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - d.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> James Alexander
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jamesofur
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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