I agree that we very rarely misidentify vandalism.
Where there is a dichotomy between quality and openness is in our handling
of new unsourced content.
There are no easy solutions here, but I would acknowledge both that a
significant proportion of new unsourced content is good faith, and also
that
Thank you all for your interests and comments!
I've made connections with individuals for more discussion. Please feel
free to contact me if you have any thoughts.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:09 AM Aaron Halfaker
wrote:
> Thank you Ofer!
>
> I'm sure Bowen would be interested in the needs/values
Thank you Ofer!
I'm sure Bowen would be interested in the needs/values you bring to ORES.
FWIW, we on the Scoring Platform team consider Researchers to be legitimate
users of ORES.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:18 AM Ofer Arazy wrote:
> Hi Bowen,
>
> I've used ORES in my research on the factors dr
Hi Bowen,
I've used ORES in my research on the factors driving article quality (where
ORES scores are used as a proxy for article quality).
If you are seeking input from the research community, I'm happy to
participate in your survey
Ofer
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 5:08 PM Bowen Yu wrote:
> Hel
Hi Bowen, after reading your project proposal I have a few questions and
concerns.
You mention a perceived tension between protecting newcomers and protecting
the quality of content. I am wondering whether that is a false dichotomy.
In my experience, test edits and blatant vandalism usually look d
Hello,
ORES has been out and served for the Wikipedia community for a while, for
the purpose such as counter-vandalism. Having seen the wide usage and
effectiveness of ORES in the community, we'd like to continue working on
ORES development. We plan to improve and redesign ORES algorithms by
incor
