----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 7:59 AM Subject: Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 64, Issue 4
> Send Wikipedia-l mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Wikipedia-l digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Study on Interfaces to Improving Wikipedia Quality > (J.L.W.S. The Special One) > 2. Re: Study on Interfaces to Improving Wikipedia Quality > (Gregory Maxwell) > 3. Re: Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 64, Issue 3 (Jocla) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:59:54 +0800 > From: "J.L.W.S. The Special One" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Study on Interfaces to Improving Wikipedia > Quality > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > How would the system handle a paragraph full of high quality, > well-referenced and well-organised content contributed by an editor A, > that > is thoroughly copyedited by an editor B? Would editor A be deemed less > trustworthy when his prose is thoroughly copyedited? > > 2008/11/25, Luca de Alfaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> Maury, >> >> perhaps I can help explain the behavior you saw in the UCSC system (I am >> one >> of the developers). >> New text is always somewhat orange, to signal to visitors that it has not >> yet been fully reviewed. >> The higher the reputation, the lighter the shade of orange, but orange it >> still is (I have no idea of how high was your computed reputation when >> you >> started writing that article). >> >> Text background becomes white when other people revise it without >> drastically changing it: this indicates consensus. >> In our more recent code version, we also have a "vote" button; using >> this, >> text can more speedily gain trust without need for many revisions to >> occur. >> In a live experiment, where people can click on the vote button, I >> presume >> the trust of the text would raise more rapidly. Note that the code >> prevents >> double voting, or creating sock-puppet accounts to vote, etc etc. >> >> So I don't think based on what you say that the system is tripping over >> diffs. It is simply considering new text less trusted, and more revised >> text more trusted, which is what we wanted. It appears however we don't >> do >> a very good job on the web site describing the algorithm (I guess we put >> most of the description work in writing the papers... we will try to >> improve >> the web site). >> >> We don't measure "edit work" in number of edits, but in number of words >> changed. >> As you say, for our system, changing 1000 words in separate edits is the >> same (provided the edits are all kept, i.e., not reverted) as providing a >> single 1000-word contribution. We thought of giving a larger prize to >> larger contributions: precisely, of making the reputation increment >> proportional to n^a, where n is the number of words, and a > 1. This did >> not work well for the Wikipedia, because it ended up not rewarding enough >> the work of the many editors, who clean and polish the articles, thus >> making >> many small edits. Technically it would be trivial to change the code to >> include such a non-linear reward scheme (to adopt rewards proportional to >> n^a rather than n); whether it is desirable, I have no idea. It does not >> lead to better quantitative performance of the system, i.e., the >> resulting >> trust is not better at predicting future text deletions. >> >> >> Luca >> >> >> >> > The USCS system did work, but gave me odd results. Apparently I have a >> > very bad reputation, because when I look in the History at the first >> > versions, which I wrote in entirety, it colored it all yellow! >> > >> > Newer versions of the same articles had much more white, even though >> > huge portions of the text were still from the origial. This may be due >> > to diff problems -- I consider diff to be largely random in >> > effectiveness, sometimes it works, but othertimes a single whitespace >> > change, especially vertical, will make it think the entire article was >> > edited. >> > >> > My guess is that the system is tripping over diffs like this, and thus >> > considering the article to have been re-written by another editor. >> > Since this has happened, MY reputation goes down, or so I understand >> > it. >> > >> > I don?t think this system could possibly work if based on wiki's >> > diffs. If its going to work it?s going to need to use a much more >> > reliable system. >> > >> > Another problem I see with it is that it will rank an author who?s >> > contributions are 1000 unchanged comma inserts to be as reliable as an >> > author who created a perfect 1000 character article (or perhaps rate >> > the first even higher). There should be some sort of length bias, if >> > an author makes a big edit, out of character, that?s important to >> > know. >> > >> > Maury >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Wikipedia-l mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikipedia-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l >> > > > > -- > Written with passion, > J.L.W.S. The Special One > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:14:57 -0500 > From: "Gregory Maxwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Study on Interfaces to Improving Wikipedia > Quality > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Luca de Alfaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [snip] >> So I don't think based on what you say that the system is tripping over >> diffs. > > For example: I can't figure out why the text in the image caption is > colored here > http://wiki-trust.cse.ucsc.edu/index.php/Digital_room_correction > > I couldn't initially figure out why *anything* above the external link > section was colored? though the inability to diff contributed to that. > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Luca de Alfaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I agree with Gregory that it is very useful to quantify the usefulness of >> trust information on text -- otherwise, all comparison are very >> subjective. >> In our WikiSym 08 paper, we measure various parameters of the "trust" >> coloring we compute, including: >> >> - Recall of deletions. Only 3.4% of text is in the lower half of trust >> values, yet this is 66% of the text that is deleted in the very next >> revision. >> - Precision of deletions. Text is the bottom half of trust values has >> probability 33% of being deleted in the next revision, agaist a >> probability >> of 1.9% for general text. The deletion probability raises to 62% for >> text >> in the bottom 20% of trust values. >> - We study the correlation between the trust of a word, sampled at >> random >> in all revisions, and the future lifespan of a word (correcting for the >> finite horizon effect due to the finite number of revisions in each >> article), showing positive correlation. > [snip] > > These performance metrics are better than I would have guessed from > browsing through the output. How does the color mapping reflect the > trust values? Basically when I use it I see a *lot* of colored things > which are perfectly fine. At least for me, the difference between > shades is far less cognitively significant than colored vs > non-colored, so that may be the source of my confusion. > > Have you compared your system to a simple toy trust metric? I'd > propose "revisions by users in their first week and before their first > 7 (?) edits are untrusted". This reflects the existing automatic > trust system on the site (auto-confirmation), and also reflects the a > type of trust checking applied manually by editors. I think thats > the bar any more sophisticated trust metric needs to outperform. > > Thank you so much for your response! > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 07:59:19 -0000 > From: "Jocla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 64, Issue 3 > To: <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > susceibe > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 1:35 AM > Subject: Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 64, Issue 3 > > >> Send Wikipedia-l mailing list submissions to >> [email protected] >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Wikipedia-l digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. suscribe (Jocla) >> 2. Study on Interfaces to Improving Wikipedia Quality >> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >> 3. Re: Study on Interfaces to Improving Wikipedia Quality >> (michael west) >> 4. Re: Study on Interfaces to Improving Wikipedia Quality >> (Joseph Reagle) >> 5. Re: Study on Interfaces to Improving Wikipedia Quality >> (Maury Markowitz) >> 6. Re: Study on Interfaces to Improving Wikipedia Quality >> (Gregory Maxwell) >> 7. Re: Study on Interfaces to Improving Wikipedia Quality >> (Luca de Alfaro) >> 8. Re: Study on Interfaces to Improving Wikipedia Quality >> (Luca de Alfaro) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:22:03 -0000 >> From: "Jocla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] suscribe >> To: <[email protected]> >> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> thanks for your e-mail, i would like to suscribe. >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: 19 Nov 2008 13:23:53 -0600 >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Study on Interfaces to Improving Wikipedia >> Quality >> To: [email protected] >> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> My name is Avanidhar Chandrasekaran >> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Avanidhar). >> >> I work with GroupLens Research at the University of Minnesota, Twin >> Cities. >> As part of my research, I am involved in analyzing the usefulness and >> Necessity of author reputation in Wikipedia. >> >> In lieu of this, I have simulated an Interface to color words in an >> article >> based on their Age. >> >> Being experienced contributors to Wikipedia, I invite you to participate >> in >> this study, which involves the following. >> >> 1. Please visit the following Instances of wikipedia and evaluate the >> interface components which have been incorporated into each of them. Each >> of these use their own algorithm to color text. >> >> a) The Wikitrust project >> >> http://wiki-trust.cse.ucsc.edu/index.php/Main_Page >> >> b) The Wiki-reputation project at Grouplens research >> >> http://wiki-reputation.cs.umn.edu/index.php/Main_Page >> >> 2) Once you have evaluated the two interfaces, kindly complete this >> survey >> on Wikipedia quality >> >> http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=hagN5S1JZHxH6pF9SmXkkA_3d_3d >> >> >> We hope to get your valuable feedback on these interfaces and how >> Wikipedia >> article quality can be improved. >> >> Thanks for your time >> >> Avanidhar Chandrasekaran, >> >> GroupLens Research, University of Minnesota >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:01:27 +0000 >> From: "michael west" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Study on Interfaces to Improving Wikipedia >> Quality >> To: [email protected] >> Message-ID: >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> >> 2008/11/19 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> My name is Avanidhar Chandrasekaran >>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Avanidhar). >>> >>> I work with GroupLens Research at the University of Minnesota, Twin >>> Cities. >>> As part of my research, I am involved in analyzing the usefulness and >>> Necessity of author reputation in Wikipedia. >>> >>> In lieu of this, I have simulated an Interface to color words in an >>> article >>> based on their Age. >>> >>> Being experienced contributors to Wikipedia, I invite you to participate >>> in >>> this study, which involves the following. >>> >>> 1. Please visit the following Instances of wikipedia and evaluate the >>> interface components which have been incorporated into each of them. >>> Each >>> of these use their own algorithm to color text. >>> >>> a) The Wikitrust project >>> >>> http://wiki-trust.cse.ucsc.edu/index.php/Main_Page >>> >>> b) The Wiki-reputation project at Grouplens research >>> >>> http://wiki-reputation.cs.umn.edu/index.php/Main_Page >>> >>> 2) Once you have evaluated the two interfaces, kindly complete this >>> survey >>> on Wikipedia quality >>> >>> http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=hagN5S1JZHxH6pF9SmXkkA_3d_3d >>> >>> >>> We hope to get your valuable feedback on these interfaces and how >>> Wikipedia >>> article quality can be improved. >>> >>> Thanks for your time >>> >>> Avanidhar Chandrasekaran, >>> >>> GroupLens Research, University of Minnesota >>> >> >> Quite interesting - the "age of words" color coding might be useful in >> detecting obtuse type vandalism. >> >> m >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 4 >> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:40:23 -0500 >> From: Joseph Reagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Study on Interfaces to Improving Wikipedia >> Quality >> To: [email protected] >> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> On Wednesday 19 November 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> We hope to get your valuable feedback on these interfaces and how >>> Wikipedia >>> article quality can be improved. >> >> This might bias other respondants, but I thought it was an intersting >> idea >> so I wanted to share it. I concluded with the following which is no doubt >> affected by my being a WikiGnome: >> >> [[ >> If I see an error, I fix it without much regard to time or author >> reputation. I do pay attention to and investigate author reputation on >> substantive issues on the discussion pages and it would be interesting to >> see a discussion thread colored according to reputation. >> ]] >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 5 >> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 09:03:25 -0500 >> From: "Maury Markowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Study on Interfaces to Improving Wikipedia >> Quality >> To: [email protected] >> Message-ID: >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 2:23 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> We hope to get your valuable feedback on these interfaces and how >>> Wikipedia >>> article quality can be improved. >> >> Given the older snapshots, I selected older articles that I had >> started, NuBUS and ARCNET. >> >> The "time based" system from UMN did not work at all, every search >> resulted in a page not found. >> >> The USCS system did work, but gave me odd results. Apparently I have a >> very bad reputation, because when I look in the History at the first >> versions, which I wrote in entirety, it colored it all yellow! >> >> Newer versions of the same articles had much more white, even though >> huge portions of the text were still from the origial. This may be due >> to diff problems -- I consider diff to be largely random in >> effectiveness, sometimes it works, but othertimes a single whitespace >> change, especially vertical, will make it think the entire article was >> edited. >> >> My guess is that the system is tripping over diffs like this, and thus >> considering the article to have been re-written by another editor. >> Since this has happened, MY reputation goes down, or so I understand >> it. >> >> I don?t think this system could possibly work if based on wiki's >> diffs. If its going to work it?s going to need to use a much more >> reliable system. >> >> Another problem I see with it is that it will rank an author who?s >> contributions are 1000 unchanged comma inserts to be as reliable as an >> author who created a perfect 1000 character article (or perhaps rate >> the first even higher). There should be some sort of length bias, if >> an author makes a big edit, out of character, that?s important to >> know. >> >> Maury >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 6 >> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 09:44:40 -0500 >> From: "Gregory Maxwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Study on Interfaces to Improving Wikipedia >> Quality >> To: [email protected] >> Message-ID: >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >> >> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Maury Markowitz >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 2:23 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> We hope to get your valuable feedback on these interfaces and how >>>> Wikipedia >>>> article quality can be improved. >>> >>> Given the older snapshots, I selected older articles that I had >>> started, NuBUS and ARCNET. >>> >>> The "time based" system from UMN did not work at all, every search >>> resulted in a page not found. >> >> The UMN system intentionally included only a small number (70?) >> articles. This is why you needed to use the random page function to >> browse among them. >> >> This doesn't reflect any short coming of the system, but it most >> likely just reflects the limits of computational resources they were >> working under. >> >> [snip] >>> Newer versions of the same articles had much more white, even though >>> huge portions of the text were still from the origial. This may be due >>> to diff problems -- I consider diff to be largely random in >>> effectiveness, sometimes it works, but othertimes a single whitespace >>> change, especially vertical, will make it think the entire article was >>> edited. >> >> Yes, I had exactly the same experience with the USCS system: Different >> coloring for text I'd added in same edit which created the article. >> Quite inscrutable. >> >> [snip] >>> Another problem I see with it is that it will rank an author who?s >>> contributions are 1000 unchanged comma inserts to be as reliable as an >>> author who created a perfect 1000 character article (or perhaps rate >>> the first even higher). There should be some sort of length bias, if >>> an author makes a big edit, out of character, that?s important to >>> know. >> >> For the articles it covered I found the UMN system to be more usable: >> It's output was more explicable, and the signal to noise ratio was >> just better. This may be partially due to bugs in the USCS history >> analysis, and different a different choice in coloring thresholds >> (USCS seemed to color almost everything, removing the usefulness of >> color as something to draw my attention). >> >> Even so, I'm distrustful of "reputation" as an automated metric. >> Reputation is a fuzzy thing (consider your comma example), but time is >> just a straight forward metric which is much easier to get right. Your >> tireless and unreverted editing of external links tells me very little >> about your ability to make a reliable edit to the intro of an article, >> ... or at least very little that I didn't already know by merely >> knowing if your account was brand new or not. (New accounts are more >> likely to be used by inexperienced and ill-motivated persons) >> >> I believe a metric applied correctly, consistently, and understandably >> is just going to be more useful than a metric which considers more >> data but is also subject to more noise. The differential performance >> between these two systems has done nothing but confirm my suspicions >> in this regard. >> >> A simply objective challenge for any predictive coloring system would >> be to use them in the following experimental procedure: >> >> * Take a dump of Wikipedia up a year old, use this as the underlying >> knowledge for the systems. >> * Make several random selections of articles and include the newer >> revisions not included in the initial set up to 6 months old. Call >> these the test sets. >> * The predictive coloring system should then take each revision in a >> test set in time order and predict if it will be reverted (Within X >> time?). >> * The actual edits up to now should be analyzed to determined which >> changes actually were reverted and when. >> >> The final score will be the false positive and false negative rates. >> So long as e assume that the existing editing practices are not too >> bad we should find that the best predictive coloring system would >> generally tend to minimize these rates. >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 7 >> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:22:23 -0800 >> From: "Luca de Alfaro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Study on Interfaces to Improving Wikipedia >> Quality >> To: [email protected] >> Message-ID: >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> >> I agree with Gregory that it is very useful to quantify the usefulness of >> trust information on text -- otherwise, all comparison are very >> subjective. >> In our WikiSym 08 paper, we measure various parameters of the "trust" >> coloring we compute, including: >> >> - Recall of deletions. Only 3.4% of text is in the lower half of trust >> values, yet this is 66% of the text that is deleted in the very next >> revision. >> - Precision of deletions. Text is the bottom half of trust values has >> probability 33% of being deleted in the next revision, agaist a >> probability >> of 1.9% for general text. The deletion probability raises to 62% for >> text >> in the bottom 20% of trust values. >> - We study the correlation between the trust of a word, sampled at >> random >> in all revisions, and the future lifespan of a word (correcting for the >> finite horizon effect due to the finite number of revisions in each >> article), showing positive correlation. >> >> Some aspects are not captured by the above measures: >> >> - We ensured that every "tampering" (including cut-and-paste) are >> reflected in the trust coloring, so it is hard to subvert the algorithm >> (does "age" provide this?). >> - We ensured the whole scheme is robust wrt attacks (see the various >> papers if you are interested). >> >> I fully believe that it should not be hard to improve on our system re. >> the >> above measurements. And I fully agree that the "reputation" we compute >> is >> essentially an internal parameter of the system, and does not really >> constitute a good summary of a person's overall Wikipedia contribution; >> for >> this and other reasons we do not display it. >> >> Luca >> >> A simply objective challenge for any predictive coloring system would >>> be to use them in the following experimental procedure: >>> >>> * Take a dump of Wikipedia up a year old, use this as the underlying >>> knowledge for the systems. >>> * Make several random selections of articles and include the newer >>> revisions not included in the initial set up to 6 months old. Call >>> these the test sets. >>> * The predictive coloring system should then take each revision in a >>> test set in time order and predict if it will be reverted (Within X >>> time?). >>> * The actual edits up to now should be analyzed to determined which >>> changes actually were reverted and when. >>> >>> The final score will be the false positive and false negative rates. >>> So long as e assume that the existing editing practices are not too >>> bad we should find that the best predictive coloring system would >>> generally tend to minimize these rates. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikipedia-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l >>> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 8 >> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:35:13 -0800 >> From: "Luca de Alfaro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Study on Interfaces to Improving Wikipedia >> Quality >> To: [email protected] >> Message-ID: >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> >> Maury, >> >> perhaps I can help explain the behavior you saw in the UCSC system (I am >> one >> of the developers). >> New text is always somewhat orange, to signal to visitors that it has not >> yet been fully reviewed. >> The higher the reputation, the lighter the shade of orange, but orange it >> still is (I have no idea of how high was your computed reputation when >> you >> started writing that article). >> >> Text background becomes white when other people revise it without >> drastically changing it: this indicates consensus. >> In our more recent code version, we also have a "vote" button; using >> this, >> text can more speedily gain trust without need for many revisions to >> occur. >> In a live experiment, where people can click on the vote button, I >> presume >> the trust of the text would raise more rapidly. Note that the code >> prevents >> double voting, or creating sock-puppet accounts to vote, etc etc. >> >> So I don't think based on what you say that the system is tripping over >> diffs. It is simply considering new text less trusted, and more revised >> text more trusted, which is what we wanted. It appears however we don't >> do >> a very good job on the web site describing the algorithm (I guess we put >> most of the description work in writing the papers... we will try to >> improve >> the web site). >> >> We don't measure "edit work" in number of edits, but in number of words >> changed. >> As you say, for our system, changing 1000 words in separate edits is the >> same (provided the edits are all kept, i.e., not reverted) as providing a >> single 1000-word contribution. We thought of giving a larger prize to >> larger contributions: precisely, of making the reputation increment >> proportional to n^a, where n is the number of words, and a > 1. This did >> not work well for the Wikipedia, because it ended up not rewarding enough >> the work of the many editors, who clean and polish the articles, thus >> making >> many small edits. Technically it would be trivial to change the code to >> include such a non-linear reward scheme (to adopt rewards proportional to >> n^a rather than n); whether it is desirable, I have no idea. It does not >> lead to better quantitative performance of the system, i.e., the >> resulting >> trust is not better at predicting future text deletions. >> >> Luca >> >> >>> The USCS system did work, but gave me odd results. Apparently I have a >>> very bad reputation, because when I look in the History at the first >>> versions, which I wrote in entirety, it colored it all yellow! >>> >>> Newer versions of the same articles had much more white, even though >>> huge portions of the text were still from the origial. This may be due >>> to diff problems -- I consider diff to be largely random in >>> effectiveness, sometimes it works, but othertimes a single whitespace >>> change, especially vertical, will make it think the entire article was >>> edited. >>> >>> My guess is that the system is tripping over diffs like this, and thus >>> considering the article to have been re-written by another editor. >>> Since this has happened, MY reputation goes down, or so I understand >>> it. >>> >>> I don?t think this system could possibly work if based on wiki's >>> diffs. If its going to work it?s going to need to use a much more >>> reliable system. >>> >>> Another problem I see with it is that it will rank an author who?s >>> contributions are 1000 unchanged comma inserts to be as reliable as an >>> author who created a perfect 1000 character article (or perhaps rate >>> the first even higher). There should be some sort of length bias, if >>> an author makes a big edit, out of character, that?s important to >>> know. >>> >>> Maury >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikipedia-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l >>> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikipedia-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l >> >> >> End of Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 64, Issue 3 >> ****************************************** >> > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Wikipedia-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l > > > End of Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 64, Issue 4 > ****************************************** _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
