The approximate score will with accurate edit distance give two equal contributors in the first case, it will credit A with all edits if a limit is set on tracking of minor edits that is anything above zero with no edits on B, and it will credit the last of two editors if last contributions wins. There are no really good approximations, and t doesn't help to use "percentages".
Best I know of is dimension reduction and measuring path length, but that too fail for some combos of vandalism/reverts. On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 5:08 PM, David Cuenca <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:58 AM, John Erling Blad <[email protected]> wrote: > >> We don't use votes... ;) >> > > I think Lydia was referring to the votes on the bugzilla bug page, 14 votes > so far :) > > >> >> If we forget about the implementation of badges and discuss the >> contributions; there are no single correct way to weight >> contributions. Assume some user A write N characters as a continuous >> string, and some user B writes the same number of characters spread >> out over a text changing N words into something else. Those two edits >> can have the same edit distance but still have a completely different >> entropy. In the last case, who "owns" the changed words? The original >> author or the later one? This isn't obvious at all. > > > I thought Wikitrust [1] and others [2] had already addressed this issues? > In any case there is no need for an "exact" attribution, an approximate > percentage score would be a good enough solution for practical purposes. > > > > [1] http://www.wikitrust.net/ > [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Mshavlovsky/Authorship_Tracking > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
