> ... and then, when the claim proves to be false, become angry and go > after the Foundation? Not necessarily legally, though.... I fear > that if they make an assumption "this text is highlighted as high > trust, so it can be trusted", and are told that this is the meaning > on a help page, we could be liable.
Yet another one of my fears. Emily On Sep 1, 2009, at 8:25 AM, Nathan Russell wrote: > 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 writing my college paper" > -take for granted the claim this text makes that a living person > cheated on his spouse (or worse possibilities" > -assume this means WP as a group/the foundation itself makes the claim > that *I* cheated on someone" > ... and then, when the claim proves to be false, become angry and go > after the Foundation? Not necessarily legally, though.... I fear > that if they make an assumption "this text is highlighted as high > trust, so it can be trusted", and are told that this is the meaning on > a help page, we could be liable. > > Nathan > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 6:36 AM, FT2<[email protected]> 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 system" or "a gadget to highlight text >> origins" >> instead. It's a lot less glamorous, sounds alot less dramatic, >> doesn't get >> the dollars - but it's got zero capability of misleading. >> >> FT2 >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:37 PM, James Alexander >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> 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 would the old blamemaps still be reinstated if someone went in >>> and >>> manually copy/pasted the old version (or something very close) in >>> or would >>> the system count it as a new contribution? >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:12 PM, David Gerard <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> 2009/8/31 David Goodman <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>>> 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 >>>> [email protected] >>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> James Alexander >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jamesofur >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
