On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 7:26 AM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
That's a very good idea.
+1
The name strikes me as the biggest drawback of the current system.
Carcharoth
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 11:36 AM, FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
I think there's a terminology issue.
We
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 12:33 AM, Samuel Kleinmeta...@gmail.com wrote:
The name strikes me as the biggest drawback of the current system.
I think de Alfaro put it well himself in his quote from Information Week:
'Despite its name, WikiTrust can't directly measure whether text is
trustworthy.
How would the blame maps work with people editing around vandalism? For
example someone either blanks the page or does extensive vandalism to it
(especially over the course of a couple days or a couple users). I would
imagine it would be fairly easy if the bad contributions just got rolledback
but
I think there's a terminology issue.
We cannot refer to this as a trust system, however Wikitrust brands it.
We just can't. It misleads too many, and implies too much.
Call it a text tracing system or a gadget to highlight text origins
instead. It's a lot less glamorous, sounds alot less
That's a very good idea.
Carcharoth
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 11:36 AM, FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
I think there's a terminology issue.
We cannot refer to this as a trust system, however Wikitrust brands it.
We just can't. It misleads too many, and implies too much.
Call it a text tracing
2009/8/31 James Alexander jameso...@gmail.com:
How would the blame maps work with people editing around vandalism? For
example someone either blanks the page or does extensive vandalism to it
(especially over the course of a couple days or a couple users). I would
imagine it would be fairly
I think there's a real risk here, to be even more blunt.
Calling it a trust system risks someone looking at a piece of text and
saying oh, look, this is trusted, so i can
-rely on this as advice before doing something dangerous/in making a
medical decision/etc
-use this as my sole source in
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 8:36 PM, FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
It's a lot less glamorous, sounds alot less dramatic, doesn't get
the dollars - but it's got zero capability of misleading.
To be honest, what exactly is the point of this thing? I've seen this
kind of thing a couple of times when
I'd use it in a flash. I often find it helpful when examining an article
(for edit warriors and vandals, or dodgy editorship), to trace back where a
given wording was introduced.
I can also see it would be immensely useful to me, to be able to see which
wordings were being warred over or changed
The problem is that while long-standing and apparently reputable
author correlate with trust, they are not the same.
The perception that a measure of text source and historicity is in any
way a measure of trust, is a misconception we have to kill at root,
burn, salt over, mercilessly counter, and
2009/9/1 FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com:
I think there's a terminology issue.
We cannot refer to this as a trust system, however Wikitrust brands it.
We just can't. It misleads too many, and implies too much.
Call it a text tracing system or a gadget to highlight text origins
instead. It's a lot
2009/8/31 Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org:
On 8/31/09 7:35 AM, Michael Peel wrote:
We've been planning to get a test setup together since conversations at
the Berlin developer meetup in April, but actual implementation of it is
pending coordination with Luca and his team.
My understanding
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
- it allows us to create blamemaps for history pages, so that you can
quickly see who added a specific piece of text. This is very
interesting for anyone who's ever tried to navigate a long version
history to find out who
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:33, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
A simple version of that is already implemented. Go to
http://wikitrust.soe.ucsc.edu/index.php/Main_Page
and click the check text tab to see it, hover over a piece of text,
and click it. The hover shows the username, and
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
2009/8/31 FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com:
Yes. Incredibly useful. What I'd like would be when colors are shown, if
you
hover over some text it pops up a hover of the user who wrote it and when
it
was written (the revision).
I am a little concerned that we are adopting a metric into our
interface without adequate testing. Quality or trust in an article is
not a simple numerical matter, much less a rough scale of a few
categories. it will take a lot of experimentation with it until the
rest of us can decide if its
- it allows us to create blamemaps for history pages, so that you
can quickly see who added a specific piece of text. This is very
interesting for anyone who's ever tried to navigate a long version
history to find out who added something.
I have to admit, I'd find this incredibly useful
True. The moment you give people a tool, many people will simplistically
assume what it does or rely unthinkingly on it.
- WikiTrust might be described as a way to see how long an edit endured
and how much trust it seems to have; in most users' hands it'll be its
colored red/blue so its
2009/8/31 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
I am a little concerned that we are adopting a metric into our
interface without adequate testing.
It appears we're not and Wired completely jumped the gun. There is no
timeframe for release of this thing even as an optional extra.
- d.
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 7:46 PM, FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
If it is introduced, then I would suggest introducing it as a gadget for
admins and experienced users, a limited number at first. Communally, it
shouldn't be available to all, but to those who request it and seem to
Not saying I disagree with you, but with that in mind and looking at the
test example, I'd say that the more useful concept isn't the ability to rate
editors - which I could do without, it's a little too anti-AGF imho - but
its usefulness as a metric of how many people have edited a particular
On 31/08/2009, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
The trust coloring is clearly the most controversial part of the
technology. However, it's also integral to it, and we think it could
be valuable. If we do integrate it, it would likely be initially as a
user preference. (And of course no
22 matches
Mail list logo
