On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Carcharoth <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 4:10 AM, Brian<[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Carcharoth <[email protected] > >wrote: > > <snip> > > >> 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? > >> > > With the disclaimer that I haven't read the paper since the 2006 > Wikimania, > > no, the algorithm is smarter than that. Simply having your edits > overwritten > > at some point in the future is not going to detract from the period of > time > > that your edit lasted. Additionally, if some but not all of your words > > persist through rewrites that would contribute to your reputation. > > If you merely revert vandalism that removes a persistent piece of > text, doesn't that unfairly contribute to your reputation as the text > continues to persist and the algorithm thinks that anyone who added it > was doing so independently? > > Carcharoth > > If you have questions like that you should probably look into the website and the paper. I think that you'll find they realized most of these issues and incorporated them into the algo. They already detect reverts so it doesn't make sense to punish the reverter. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
