Re: [WikiEN-l] [Wikitech-l] Fwd: Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
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 is that work has proceeded pretty well on setting it up to be able to fetch page history data more cleanly internally, which was a prerequisite, so we're hoping to get that going this fall. To add to what Brion said: The author of the Wired story, Hadley Leggett, scheduled a call with me earlier this month, but she missed the call. I didn't have time to follow up with her after that, and she filed the story without it. This is why there's no WMF quote in the story. The gist of it is that: We're very interested in WikiTrust, primarily for two reasons: - 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. - it potentially allows us to come up with an algorithmic best recent revision guess. This is very useful for offline exports. 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 view of the article would have it toggled on by default.) There may also be additional community consultation required. Any integration is contingent on the readiness of the technology. It seems to have matured over the last couple of years, and we're planning to meet with Luca soon to review the current state of things. There's no fixed deployment roadmap yet, and the deployment of FlaggedRevs is our #1 priority. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ 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 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 added something. 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). This would be a bit like the way Google Translate pops up the source text. I'd position the popup far left or far right of the window though so it doesn't obscure the text and annoy one so much (or have positioning be an option). - it potentially allows us to come up with an algorithmic best recent revision guess. This is very useful for offline exports. Makes sense. Also good for anti-vandalism work. 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 view of the article would have it toggled on by default.) There may also be additional community consultation required. A show/hide button on the screen, with default status in preferences, please. And maybe an interface issue to consider, having a narrow top bar that doesn't scroll, where status, flagged revision etc info can be put that will always be visible no matter where you are in the article. FT2 ___ 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] Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
Or if everybody knows how to game then the gaming advantage vanishes. Perhaps. Emily On Aug 30, 2009, at 9:06 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Or if everybody knows how to game then the gaming advantage vanishes. Full disclosure can also level the field. ___ 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 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 by clicking it, you'll get a diff. (This may not be the latest code.) According to their Wikimania presentation (hopefully available soon on Commons), they've also prepared a Firefox add-on, WikiTrust, which adds a new trust info tab to the top of mainspace articles. The trust info database is still being populated, though, so the trust info itself may be a little skewed; at the presentation they estimated that the English Wikipedia trust info database would be finished in about a month. (Their existing algorithm is language-independent, so presumably the add-on will work for non-English wikis as well.) The Firefox add-on is still classified as experimental, but adventurous persons can still get it at https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/11087. -- Jim Redmond jredm...@gmail.com ___ 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 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). 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 by clicking it, you'll get a diff. (This may not be the latest code.) A show/hide button on the screen, with default status in preferences, please. And maybe an interface issue to consider, having a narrow top bar that doesn't scroll, where status, flagged revision etc info can be put that will always be visible no matter where you are in the article. There's definitely a need to consolidate the FlaggedRevs revision tag indicator with any WikiTrust UI elements. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Added a note on it here: http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Releases/Acai#Mini_toolbar_idea FT2 ___ 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 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 valid enough to be part of our actual interface--this is a decision that needs to be made by each community, and I hope it will be made carefully, before we commit to it. 'What people may want to use as an add on is their affair--what we offer to them as a gadget is something else. I'm not sure we have any formal method for approving them, but we ought to. The WMF should not be prescribing it for us. That this should be done at the same time as the flagged revisions test is yet another complication. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:15 PM, FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: 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). 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 by clicking it, you'll get a diff. (This may not be the latest code.) A show/hide button on the screen, with default status in preferences, please. And maybe an interface issue to consider, having a narrow top bar that doesn't scroll, where status, flagged revision etc info can be put that will always be visible no matter where you are in the article. There's definitely a need to consolidate the FlaggedRevs revision tag indicator with any WikiTrust UI elements. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Added a note on it here: http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Releases/Acai#Mini_toolbar_idea FT2 ___ 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] Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
Is it not more likely that most long-term editors who have been active for years have had most of their text mercilessly edited into oblivion and have very low average trust levels? Sometimes. However, on new page patrol, I'll sometimes completely rewrite a page, both for practice and because I see an inkling of potential in a page that would normally be speedily deleted via SNOW via AfD in a heartbeat. In other words, a well-meaning contributor ALREADY can't be trusted...according to a piece of software. Emily On Aug 30, 2009, at 10:08 PM, Carcharoth wrote: On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:28 AM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/31 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu: I would also point out that competition can be a very healthy thing and it could very well be a motivating tool. Assuming an algorithm that is difficult to game editors might well be very interested in improving their reputation scores. It could even give some credibility to the encyclopedia. Yes, competition is a good motivator, but that is only useful if it is motivating people to do something desirable. We don't actually want people to try and avoid being reverted - WP:BOLD is still widely accepted as a good guideline, isn't it? Is it not more likely that most long-term editors who have been active for years have had most of their text mercilessly edited into oblivion and have very low average trust levels? And more recent editors may have higher trust levels? Carcharoth ___ 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] Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
Yes, competition is a good motivator, but that is only useful if it is motivating people to do something desirable. We don't actually want people to try and avoid being reverted - WP:BOLD is still widely accepted as a good guideline, isn't it? Well, that's what I'm worried about, mostly. Emily On Aug 30, 2009, at 9:28 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: 2009/8/31 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu: I would also point out that competition can be a very healthy thing and it could very well be a motivating tool. Assuming an algorithm that is difficult to game editors might well be very interested in improving their reputation scores. It could even give some credibility to the encyclopedia. Yes, competition is a good motivator, but that is only useful if it is motivating people to do something desirable. We don't actually want people to try and avoid being reverted - WP:BOLD is still widely accepted as a good guideline, isn't it? ___ 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
- 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 myself. 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'd also find this useful. Emily On Aug 31, 2009, at 12:26 PM, FT2 wrote: 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 added something. 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). This would be a bit like the way Google Translate pops up the source text. I'd position the popup far left or far right of the window though so it doesn't obscure the text and annoy one so much (or have positioning be an option). - it potentially allows us to come up with an algorithmic best recent revision guess. This is very useful for offline exports. Makes sense. Also good for anti-vandalism work. 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 view of the article would have it toggled on by default.) There may also be additional community consultation required. A show/hide button on the screen, with default status in preferences, please. And maybe an interface issue to consider, having a narrow top bar that doesn't scroll, where status, flagged revision etc info can be put that will always be visible no matter where you are in the article. FT2 ___ 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
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 right/wrong. - People won't think, they'll assume and rely. 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 understand what it shows and how to interpret it (perhaps package it with rollback or something that gets a little scrutiny of their cluefulness?) Thats for the future, but no harm thinking ahead. Very wary of what people will assume it means, and that we're clear it is a tool that needs considerable experienced interpretation and is *misleading *without it. FT2 On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 7:23 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: 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 valid enough to be part of our actual interface--this is a decision that needs to be made by each community, and I hope it will be made carefully, before we commit to it. 'What people may want to use as an add on is their affair--what we offer to them as a gadget is something else. I'm not sure we have any formal method for approving them, but we ought to. The WMF should not be prescribing it for us. That this should be done at the same time as the flagged revisions test is yet another complication. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:15 PM, FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: 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). 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 by clicking it, you'll get a diff. (This may not be the latest code.) A show/hide button on the screen, with default status in preferences, please. And maybe an interface issue to consider, having a narrow top bar that doesn't scroll, where status, flagged revision etc info can be put that will always be visible no matter where you are in the article. There's definitely a need to consolidate the FlaggedRevs revision tag indicator with any WikiTrust UI elements. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Added a note on it here: http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Releases/Acai#Mini_toolbar_idea FT2 ___ 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...
In a message dated 8/31/2009 11:47:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ft2.w...@gmail.com writes: - 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 right/wrong. - People won't think, they'll assume and rely. --- Interesting to see this by virtue of repetition in our mirrors. And our pseudo-mirrors who *don't* event state that they mirrored us. Then after a phrase has been cut from our version due to lack of source, it's put back in citing a past mirror who hasn't removed it Circular. Unsourced statement one has high trust because it's been there for two years, without a source. When a source is found contradicting it, will there be a big fight because 100 editors has passed on this and haven't reverted it! Shades of past warfare. Will Johnson ___ 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 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
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Wikitech-l] Fwd: Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
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 understand what it shows and how to interpret it (perhaps package it with rollback or something that gets a little scrutiny of their cluefulness?) I'm not sure why this would be restricted to admins and experienced users. Does *anyone* else support this view? It would be more logical, in my view, to either have it or not have it, not some halfway house. Thats for the future, but no harm thinking ahead. Very wary of what people will assume it means, and that we're clear it is a tool that needs considerable experienced interpretation and is *misleading *without it. Admins and experienced users would be just as capable of misinterpreting it. Carcharoth ___ 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
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 section. That would give every sentence some measure of Wiki-ness, how much it had been edited mercilessly. I for one take dislike seeing masses of paragraphs written by one or two people and would be far more likely to comb through and copyedit or look for things within that section, no matter who wrote it, than one with 10 or 20 editors contributing. That's the part that would be worthwhile. ~A On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 14:46, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: Very wary of what people will assume it means, and that we're clear it is a tool that needs considerable experienced interpretation and is *misleading *without it. FT2 ___ 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 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 view of the article would have it toggled on by default.) There may also be additional community consultation required. If I understand this correctly, wouldn't trust coloring inevitably mark all new users and anonymous IPs as untrustworthy? So, basically, wouldn't trust coloring be a way of failing to assume good faith for all anonymous IPs and new users, and institutionalising this in the software? -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation -- -Ian Woollard All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually. ___ 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] British-American dictionary
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:55 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Here's one http://www.travelfurther.net/dictionaries/ba-tz.htm It's so interesting, as an australian, seeing which of each of those pairs looks normal to me. Eg, Garden (not yard), Gas or Natural Gas both seem ok to me, Pickle (US) not Gherkin, Give Way not Yield, Gear Stick (not Gear Lever or Gear Shift!), Glove Box not compartment, Goose Bumps (US) not Goose Pimples, Mouth Guard (US) not Gum Shield, GP not Family Doctor, Grease-Proof Paper not Waxed Paper... Pretty random really. 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
