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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
