Since the analysis is over a period of time, it's easy to trial it offline by statically calculating results for a past period or certain editors, then seeing if those mean anything. Overall my suspicion is 1/ it'll be so poorly correlated with quality as to be unhelpful compared to other guides, 2/ we don't want to encourage a move to that kind of user evaluation metric anyway for the many reasons given.
FT2 On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:57 AM, Brian <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Thomas Dalton <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > 2009/8/31 Brian <[email protected]>: > > > 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? > > > > From the perspective of building an excellent encyclopedia you might want > people to be bold. This is an inherently inclusionist perspective where we > assume that bold editors who write awful, inaccurate or mediocre stuff are > still making valuable contributions. They are either contributing cruft > which is easy to get rid of, or they are contributing seeds for some future > editor to improve, or seeds for conversations on the talk page that will in > time result in high quality content. Or if we're lucky, they are not only > bold but really smart and only capable of producing brilliant prose. In > short, in the limit of time any contribution is a good contribution. Even > the worst contribution you can think of (which is probably engineered to > stick but blatantly false) is going to eventually be tagged as vandalism > and > will help contribute to future intelligent algorithms that automatically > weed out vandalism. > > From the perspective of an editor whose reputation is at stake, they are > going to want to think more carefully about their contribution. On average > they want all of their edits to remain in the encyclopedia for a long time. > They might not want to be bold and thoughtless because that means they are > simply planting a seed for another editor to improve on, making it easier > for that other editor to improve their reputation at the stake of your > reputation. You might want to start your seed of an edit as a draft and > improve it over time, only finally submitting it to the encyclopedia after > it is already high quality and likely to stick. > > I tend to think that the latter version is healthier than encouraging > everyone to contribute every thought that they have. Similar to the > [[Foot-in-the-door technique]], first we convinced you to edit this page, > now we'd like to ask you to spend some time thinking about your edit before > you submit it. If you do, your reputation will improve and your peers will > respect your edits more in the future. > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
