Re: [WikiEN-l] [Wikitech-l] Fwd: Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
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 would the old blamemaps still be reinstated if someone went in and manually copy/pasted the old version (or something very close) in or would the system count it as a new contribution? On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:12 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 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. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- James Alexander http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jamesofur ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Wikitech-l] Fwd: Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
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 dramatic, doesn't get the dollars - but it's got zero capability of misleading. FT2 On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:37 PM, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.comwrote: 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 would the old blamemaps still be reinstated if someone went in and manually copy/pasted the old version (or something very close) in or would the system count it as a new contribution? On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:12 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 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. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- James Alexander http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jamesofur ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Wikitech-l] Fwd: Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
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 system or a gadget to highlight text origins instead. It's a lot less glamorous, sounds alot less dramatic, doesn't get the dollars - but it's got zero capability of misleading. FT2 On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:37 PM, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.comwrote: 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 would the old blamemaps still be reinstated if someone went in and manually copy/pasted the old version (or something very close) in or would the system count it as a new contribution? On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:12 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 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. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- James Alexander http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jamesofur ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Wikitech-l] Fwd: Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
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 easy if the bad contributions just got rolledback but would the old blamemaps still be reinstated if someone went in and manually copy/pasted the old version (or something very close) in or would the system count it as a new contribution? I haven't been following this in any particular detail - I have no intent of using the system! - but this is certainly an issue they have thought of and planned for; they currently describe the system as robust to cut-and-pase, delete-and-reinsert, and most type of attacks... I suspect the papers linked at the bottom here - http://wikitrust.soe.ucsc.edu/index.php/Main_Page - go into a bit more detail about the algorithm. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Wikitech-l] Fwd: Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
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 writing my college paper -take for granted the claim this text makes that a living person cheated on his spouse (or worse possibilities -assume this means WP as a group/the foundation itself makes the claim that *I* cheated on someone ... and then, when the claim proves to be false, become angry and go after the Foundation? Not necessarily legally, though I fear that if they make an assumption this text is highlighted as high trust, so it can be trusted, and are told that this is the meaning on a help page, we could be liable. Nathan On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 6:36 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 system or a gadget to highlight text origins instead. It's a lot less glamorous, sounds alot less dramatic, doesn't get the dollars - but it's got zero capability of misleading. FT2 On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:37 PM, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.comwrote: 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 would the old blamemaps still be reinstated if someone went in and manually copy/pasted the old version (or something very close) in or would the system count it as a new contribution? On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:12 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 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. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- James Alexander http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jamesofur ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Wikitech-l] Fwd: Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
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 academics have been doing research. But what's the use case? What are users supposed to do with the knowledge? Is it important? Should end-users care? All I can see is a moderately handy tool for editors who do a lot of patrolling, to save them a bit of time. Other than that, it just makes the page text hard to read, imho. Or have I missed some radical advancement in the tech? Steve ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Positives to publicity
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 8:47 PM, genigeni...@gmail.com wrote: Most people are not going to want to read a book before editing wikipedia. Your problems are: -1) Getting people to realise that it's possible to edit 0) Getting people to want to edit 1)getting people to click the edit link in the first place (polish style tab highlighting may help here) 2)getting them not to give up once they've clicked the edit button (usability project) 3)encouraging them to edit again in future (mostly related to making sure they have a good first experience). ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Wikitech-l] Fwd: Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
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 recently and which were more stable or historically unchanged. As I also know a number of users, it may further help me in evaluating a text, to have a quick way (hover information) to say okay, these are texts introduced by users I know and consider decent responsible editors, so I don't have to spend time on them and can focus on these sections. However I would be relying on my own experience and using it as a tool to assist and help me shortcut doing things I do already, not as a bible of reliability, a substitute for reliable sources, or as a measure of implicit trust. FT2 On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: 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 academics have been doing research. But what's the use case? What are users supposed to do with the knowledge? Is it important? Should end-users care? All I can see is a moderately handy tool for editors who do a lot of patrolling, to save them a bit of time. Other than that, it just makes the page text hard to read, imho. Or have I missed some radical advancement in the tech? Steve ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Wikitech-l] Fwd: Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
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 also impale all those who defile it. And generally destroy it with prejudice. Because we dare not allow that gadget to be misinterpreted that way (even if in knowing hands it can indeed indicate trust or doubt). It's very tempting, so people will, and they'll read it is in the media... so we have to bludgeon home it ISN'T. (There would have been a graphic imagery spoiler, but we deleted spoilers ages ago) FT2 On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Emily Monroebluecalioc...@me.com wrote: ... and then, when the claim proves to be false, become angry and go after the Foundation? Not necessarily legally, though I fear that if they make an assumption this text is highlighted as high trust, so it can be trusted, and are told that this is the meaning on a help page, we could be liable. Yet another one of my fears. Emily On Sep 1, 2009, at 8:25 AM, Nathan Russell wrote: 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 writing my college paper -take for granted the claim this text makes that a living person cheated on his spouse (or worse possibilities -assume this means WP as a group/the foundation itself makes the claim that *I* cheated on someone ... and then, when the claim proves to be false, become angry and go after the Foundation? Not necessarily legally, though I fear that if they make an assumption this text is highlighted as high trust, so it can be trusted, and are told that this is the meaning on a help page, we could be liable. Nathan On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 6:36 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 system or a gadget to highlight text origins instead. It's a lot less glamorous, sounds alot less dramatic, doesn't get the dollars - but it's got zero capability of misleading. FT2 On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:37 PM, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.comwrote: 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 would the old blamemaps still be reinstated if someone went in and manually copy/pasted the old version (or something very close) in or would the system count it as a new contribution? On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:12 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 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. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- James Alexander http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jamesofur ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Wikitech-l] Fwd: Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
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 less glamorous, sounds alot less dramatic, doesn't get the dollars - but it's got zero capability of misleading. Call it Wikidrama or wikimyspace instead? ;-) Seriously, you need to propose the name change to Luca and team. The Wired article is nice publicity for them, but should show them what an epic disaster the name could be. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
