On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Brian <brian.min...@colorado.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 7:42 PM, FT2 <ft2.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Agree - trust scores are likely to be divisive and easily gamed. I do not >> think "trust score league tables" will help the project. >> >> However as they are also good ways to spot problems and see the >> "reliability >> profile" of an article on review, perhaps some way might be found to make >> some of their results available, in some limited manner? Admin only?? >> >> On the assumption admins are trusted anyway so they don't have such a >> vested >> interest in numbers, but they might be interested in problem editorship. >> >> The other view is if you can see the aging or trust profile of the >> article, >> that's all you need. low trust-score users may simply be legitimate but >> inexperienced, bold and reverted, etc. There are other ways to ID problem >> editors, and if you need to know who wrote a specific sentence you can >> always use WikiBlame to check the history. >> >> So overall I would say you don't need to publish trust scores of users, >> and >> even telling a user their own trust score is merely a toehold into self >> promotion/gaming at best. People should edit, not be encouraged to keep >> scorecards..... >> >> FT2 >> > > Playing devils advocate, isn't there far too little information available > about your average editor? How do you determine at a glance the reputation > of an editor whose edits you are reviewing, or with whom you are having a > conversation? Further, since the full history dump is publicly available and > the given algorithm is just one of many related measures that could be > computed, is it pointless to try and stop the information from being > released? Lastly, in the interest of transparency should the information not > be made available? Shouldn't the goal be to create an algorithm that can't > be gamed? It may actually be the case that this one is not very subject to > manipulation. The authors are very astute and it would take an awful lot of > effort. > I would also point out that competition can be a very healthy thing and it could very well be a motivating tool. Assuming an algorithm that is difficult to game editors might well be very interested in improving their reputation scores. It could even give some credibility to the encyclopedia. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
