On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Thomas Dalton <[email protected]>wrote:
> 2009/8/20 Anthony <[email protected]>: > > I wouldn't suggest looking at the edit history at all, just the most > recent > > revision as of whatever moment in time is chosen. If vandalism is found, > > then and only then would one look through the edit history to find out > when > > it was added. > > That only works if the article is very well referenced and you have > all the references and are willing to fact-check everything. Otherwise > you will miss subtle vandalism like changing the date of birth by a > year. No need for the article to be referenced at all, but yes, it would be time consuming, or at least person-time consuming. On the other hand, it'd answer the question, in a way that an automated process never could do (assuming I've got my statistical analysis right, anyway: http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html seems to suggest a 99% confidence level for 664 random samples out of 3 million, but I'm not sure what "response distribution" means). _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
