[Wikiquality-l] Wikipedia colored according to trust
John Erling Blad
john.erling.blad at jeb.no
Fri Dec 21 13:44:36 UTC 2007
This kind of problem will arise from all systems where an asymmetry is
introduced. One part can then fight the other part and win out, due tor
the ordering of the fight. The problem is rather difficult to solve as
the system must be symmetrical not only between two consecutive edits
but edits split out over several postings, merged, intermixed with other
edits etc.
John E
Luca de Alfaro skrev:
> Daniel is making some very good points.
>
> Our current algorithm is vulnerable to two kinds of attacks:
>
> * Sock puppets
> * People who split an edit into many smaller ones, done with sock
> puppets or not, in order to raise the trust of text.
>
> We think we know how to fix or at least mitigate both problems. This
> is why I say that a "real-time" system that colors revisions as they
> are made is a couple of months (I hope) away. The challenge is not so
> much to reorganize the code to work from wikipedia dumps to real-time
> edits. The challenge for us is to analyze, implement, and quantify
> the performance of versions of the algorithms that are resistant to
> attack. For those of you who have checked our papers, you would have
> seen that not only we propose algorithms, but we do extensive
> performance studies on how good the algorithms are. We will want to
> do the same for the algorithms for fighting sock puppets.
>
> About the proposal by Daniel: time alone does not cover our full set
> of concerns.
> I can every day use identity A to erase some good text, and identity B
> to put it back in. Then, the reputation of B would grow a bit every
> day, even though B did not do much effort.
> We are thinking of some other solutions... but please forgive us for
> keeping this to ourselves a little bit longer... we would like to have
> a chance to do a full study before shooting our mouths off...
>
> Luca
>
> On Dec 19, 2007 6:05 PM, Daniel Arnold <arnomane at gmx.de
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:Wikiquality-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikiquality-l mailing list
> Wikiquality-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: john.erling.blad.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikiquality-l/attachments/20071221/40e63a65/attachment.vcf
More information about the Wikiquality-l
mailing list