Kerry, thanks for kicking this off. One update on our end:
There is a general alignment between a few different teams/departments
in WMF that this is an important problem to support chekcusers with in
a better way than what we do today.
I gave a presentation in Wikimania about the research on
Nemo,
Can you please elaborate on what use of language, and whose use of
language, you are criticizing? It is not clear from your email what
"jargon" you refer to, and why you feel it is inappropriate.
Jonathan
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 12:59 AM Federico Leva (Nemo)
wrote:
> Please everyone
Please everyone avoid using jargon specific to the English Wikipedia on
this cross-language and cross-wiki mailing list.
Aaron Halfaker, 23/08/19 17:36:
I think embeddings[1] would be a nice way to create a signature.
There is some discussion of acceptable user fingerprinting (presumably
to
Is that what they do? I thought we mostly did that.
TJW/GMG
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019, 06:20 Nick Wilson (Quiddity)
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 5:23 PM Kerry Raymond
> wrote:
>
> > That's why I think we need "signatures" which is my shorthand for things
> > like a hash function or a bounding
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 5:23 PM Kerry Raymond
wrote:
> That's why I think we need "signatures" which is my shorthand for things
> like a hash function or a bounding box, a means by which many non-matching
> accounts can be eliminated at low cost, reserving the high cost comparisons
> (machine or
Then again, apparently the Foundation has a PR team whose only job is to
compile the latest marketing buzzwords, and they seem to really love AI.
You might get some buy in. Never know.
V/r
TJW/GMG
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 11:23 Kerry Raymond wrote:
> That's why I think we need "signatures" which
That's why I think we need "signatures" which is my shorthand for things like a
hash function or a bounding box, a means by which many non-matching accounts
can be eliminated at low cost, reserving the high cost comparisons (machine or
human) only for high probability candidates. It is
I think embeddings[1] would be a nice way to create a signature.
Essentially, we could dump data about a person's activities into it (words
added, namespaces edited, time of day of edits, temporal frequency of
editing, # of revisions per session, frequency of citation by type, etc.)
and get a
You are correct that in all but the most obvious cases, filing an SPI can
be exceptionally time consuming. I'm afraid there is no obvious technical
solution there that would not involve a complicated AI that is probably
beyond the ability of the foundation to produce.
There is quite a bit of data
Just a note that you can still go through warnings for vandalism etc. and
report to AIV.
Or at that edit speed, you may have a chance at AN at reporting for
bot-like edits which will draw attention to the account.
If you ever need help, things like #wikipedia-en-help on Freenode IRC exist
so you
To reply to my own question .
Can we find a way to create a "signature" of an account's pattern of
editing? Perhaps it might be a set of signatures, maybe one for the
categories that the account appears to be active in, another for the type of
edit, etc. Then if these signatures were
11 matches
Mail list logo
