[Wikiquality-l] Wikipedia colored according to trust

[Brian]

Sockpuppets? Surely this can't be more than .00000000000001% of the user
base?

On Dec 19, 2007 7:05 PM, Daniel Arnold <arnomane at gmx.de> wrote:

> Hello Luca,
>
> >    1. The trust coloring rightly colored orange (low-trust) some
> >    unreliable content,
>
> Yes I was lost in translation. ;-)
>
> >    2. and the Wikipedia people were quick in reverting it.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Note that we also highlight as low trust text that is by anonymous
> > contributors. The text will then gain trust as it is revised.
>
> One possible weakness came into my mind after I also read your paper. Your
> algorithm is perhapes a bit vulnerable to "sock puppets". Imagine person A
> with one account and person B with two accounts. Both have a medium
> reputation value for their accounts. User A edits an article with his
> account
> 4 times. All 4 subsequent edits are taken together and the article has a
> maximum trust value according to the user's reputation. User B makes as
> well
> 4 edits to an article but switches between his accounts and thus "reviews"
> his own edits. If I understand your algorithm correctly the sock puppeted
> article is trusted more than the other one.
>
> Quite some time ago I reflected how to avoid incentives for sock puppets
> in
> karma systems without even knowing which accounts are sock puppets:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meritokratischer_Review (sadly in German
> ;-).
> The system described there differs from your approach but the idea on how
> to
> avoid incentives for sock puppets without even knowing who a sock puppet
> is
> could perhapes adapted to your system.
>
> The basic idea for a sock puppet proof metric is is that a person has only
> a
> limited amount of time for editing (I don't consider bots cause they are
> easily detectable by humans). A single person needs the same time for e.g.
> 4
> edits (in the following I assume each edit has the same length in bytes)
> regardless how much accounts are used but two different people with each 2
> edits only need half of the (imaginary) time (you don't need to measure
> any
> time untits at all).
>
> So the maximum possible reliability person B can apply to the article with
> its
> two accounts (let us say each acount has 2 edits = 4 total edits) has to
> be
> the same as the one which is possible with person A's single account (4
> edits). So in general two accounts with each X edits should never be able
> to
> add more trust to an article than one person with 2*X edits (note: edit
> count
> number is only for illustration, you can take another appropriate
> contribution unit).
>
> > About 2, I am very glad that bad edits are quickly reverted; this is the
> > whole reason Wikipedia has worked up to now.
> > Still, it might be easier for editors to find content to check via the
> > coloring, rather than by staring at diffs.
>
> That's certainly true for articles not on your watchlist (or bad edits
> that
> were forgotten and are still the latest version).
>
> >   - Finding when flagged revisions are out of date (there may be a new
> >   high-trust version later)
>
> Well as I said I'd love to see flagged revisions and your system combined
> (in
> a way described by my previous mail). An automated system probably always
> has
> some weaknesses some clever people can abuse but it is very fast, while a
> hand crafted system depends on the speed of individual persons but is much
> harder to fool.
>
> > BTW, as the method is language-independent, we look forward to doing the
> > same for wikipedias in other languages.
>
> Good to know. :-)
>
> Arnomane
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikiquality-l mailing list
> Wikiquality-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikiquality-l/attachments/20071219/9c2b0fcf/attachment.htm