Could a Reputation System Improve Wikipedia?

Acidus writes, "There is an excellent article in this month's First Monday about using reputation systems to limit the effects of vandalism on public wikis like Wikipedia. It discusses the benefits and weaknesses of various algorithms to judge how 'reliable' a given piece of text or an edit is. From the article: 'I propose that it would be better to provide Wikipedia users with a visual cue that enables them to see what assertions in an article have, in fact, survived the scrutiny of a large number of people, and what assertions are relatively fresh, and may not be as reliable. This would enable Wikipedia users to take more advantage of the power of the collaborative editing process taking place without forcing that process to change.'"

Comments

Sullied Reputations

[Anonymous Coward]

There are sooo many sullied reputations, perhaps your credit rating would be more informative.

Tyranny

[Archangel Michael]

We are dealing with man's nature towards tyranny.

Should the "majority" hold the power, it becomes Tyranny of the majority.

When a "minority" can muck it up for the rest of us, it is Tyranny of the minority.

The US' founding fathers understood this, and created a system that in theory should have prevented both (but hasn't been realized because we no longer use that system in its original form).

Once you realize the problem, only then can one begin to work towards a solution. Since there is no real "solution" to tyranny, the only solution is to stop seeking a solution and make everyone responsible, equally, for themselves, and ONLY themselves.

I am not opposed to dealing with those that muck up the system, be they majority or minority stakeholders, it just needs to be done. A system that recognizes and emphasizes differences of opinion and the inate value of facts could solve the problem.

Think of Red, Blue, Green, Yellow, Orange, Purple lables for those pieces of disputed information / opinion. This way we could have ALL the information, and it wouldn't be subject to political bias (since all sides would be represented).

Most of the flame wars on Wiki are not over facts, but the value of, and which facts ought to be included. One man's "LIE" is another man's "fact".