On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Thomas Dalton <[email protected]>wrote:
> 2009/8/21 Anthony <[email protected]>: > > 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. > > You mean you could go and find references for the information > yourself? I suppose you could, but that is completely impractical. > My God. If a few dozen people couldn't easily determine to a relatively high degree of certainty what portion of a mere 0.03% of Wikipedia's articles are *vandalized*, how useless is Wikipedia? >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). > > The site looks like it is for surveys made up of yes/no questions, I > don't think it is going to apply to this. > "Is this article vandalized?" is a yes/no question... _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
