A bit like cryptography? If it needs obscurity to withstand gaming it's worthless?
A metric like "this user's edits are routinely reverted" or "routinely reverted on topic X" might be useful. Ditto a study of words used in the revert edit's summary. Beyond that I'm not convinced it's feasible to calculate a score for trust, just because editors can edit in many different areas and ways. As an extreme example, a FA editor or project page developer who uses BRD to achieve more quicker, will score very differently from a POV warrior who writes obscure but slightly skewed pages, or a sock user. the page text will show reversion, recreation or aging which is useful... but the author's trust rating will be very variable. FT2 On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:48 AM, Brian <brian.min...@colorado.edu> wrote: > Playing devils advocate, isn't there far too little information available > about your average editor? How do you determine at a glance the reputation > of an editor whose edits you are reviewing, or with whom you are having a > conversation? Further, since the full history dump is publicly available > and > the given algorithm is just one of many related measures that could be > computed, is it pointless to try and stop the information from being > released? Lastly, in the interest of transparency should the information > not > be made available? Shouldn't the goal be to create an algorithm that can't > be gamed? It may actually be the case that this one is not very subject to > manipulation. The authors are very astute and it would take an awful lot of > effort. > > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l