[Wikipedia-l] moving forward on article validation

[Alphax (Wikipedia email)]

Delirium wrote:
<snip>
> Proposal #2: Institute a rating and trust-metric system
> ---
> Wikipedians rate revisions, perhaps on some scale from "complete crap" 
> to "I'm an expert in this field and am confident of its accuracy and 
> high quality".  Then there is some way of coming up with a score for 
> that revision, perhaps based on the trustworthiness of the raters 
> themselves (determined through some method).  Once that's done, the 
> interface can do things like display the last version of an article over 
> some score, if any, or a big warning that the article sucks otherwise 
> (and so on).
> 
> Some pros: Distributed; no duplicated effort; good revisions are marked 
> good as soon as enough people have vetted them; humans review the 
> articles, but the "process" itself is done automatically; most articles 
> will have some information about their quality to present to a reader
> 
> Some cons: Gameing-proof trust metric systems are notoriously hard to 
> design.
<snip>

Ever taken a look at <http://advogato.org/trust-metric.html>?

-- 
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20060614/c36f4e33/attachment.pgp