Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
The site is /.-ed, but this got me thinking: what about having an additional page view that uses color to highlight text age? Oldest text would be black, newest would be something else (red? blue?), intermediate 'ages' in intermediate shades. This would make it quite obvious which parts of the article haven't been modified in a long time.
-- the cake is a lie
Firstly, the word was "improve", not "solve". I think Wikipedia would improve substantially if it added an editorial supervision system. For example, changes were not posted until approved by a randomly assigned editor. The random part is important. Sure, it's still possible to trash the system, but that takes a lot more effort. And then you need a rating system for editors, and so on and so forth. But the Wikipedia is run on a volunteer basis. There are limits to what it can accomplish without resorting to professional oversight, which would change the very nature of the beast. Ultimately, I think we just have to accept that it is what it is.
Larry Sanger has acutely commented on Wikipedia's anti-elitism and the way they have run experts off the system. Experts don't have the time or energy to debate fundamental points of well-understood scholarships with game-playing trolls. Further, even when they aren't teenagers, Wikipedia has become the home of everyone who wants history and scholarship to read the way they like it rather than representing some academic consensus. As a result we have politicians trying to rewrite their personal biographies (or those of their opponents), partisans on each side of the world's conflicts burnishing their allies and undermining their opponents (Israel/Palestine, Turkey/Armenia, US/everyone else), and devotees of everything from Microsoft Vista to Nintendo to PETA skillfully expunging objective truth from their deifications of the chosen object of worship.
So doling out karma to 100,000 teenage idiots is not going to solve Wikipedia's problem. In order to save Wikipedia, we need to destroy it -- it needs to be edited by more experts and fewer "normal people".
Good the Wright brothers didn't say that because lots of attempts were made at flying that failed.
Slashdot's karma system is far from perfect, but at the end of the day it works. Can you game it? I don't really think so, at least not without a LOT of effort, which generally means contributing a lot of good content/ratings so that you can sneak in a very small amount of biased content or ratings.
Whether "ungameable" is possible or not I don't know, but I am quite sure that wikipedia's system could be improved upon massively.
Actually, every article on quantum mechanics exists in a state between vandalized and not vandalized. By viewing it you colapse the waveform and change it's value. Now, there is a good probability that it will turn out unvandalized, but as you have stated it occasionaly collapses into a vandalized article. After you leave the page, Wikipedia runs complex calculations in it's improbability engine and sends the article back into a quantum state.
P.S. This is presented as per my understanding of quantum mechanics which I learned entirely from Wikipedia. It may be wrong however as my viewing might have caused it to appear in a vandalized state.
P.P.S
Debian, Linux, emacs. That wasn't so hard. (Anyone who disagrees is a terrorist.)
If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
I'm not going to get in the politicing and all. The simple fact is the only response back you'll get from this is how many reverts have been done when you post and those arn't always your fault.
The best parts of Wikipedia is a fast and easy way to edit information, no hassles, no extra effort required. You get out what you put in and that's it. You want to put in the work to be a vandal you're a vandal, but in the end you already know what you're doing. Type in a good sentance but someone replaces it with a better paragraph that's fine.
But instead of working on the core of the experience now we are going to spend time rating each others' facts, rating each other. Basically just killing time. The simple fact is we don't need it, this system is in place in a lot of other places and in effect it basically weeds out the bad apples at the inconvience of all the good users. "You'll have to do 5 discussion posts before you can edit an article" "you have to edit three more articles before you can add an article". This stuff doesn't help or appeal to anyone but "karma whore" types.
If I write a well written page about the new player on the Red Soxes, I should be able to go in to a page that links to it create that page, set up my links and go. I should be able to do this on the first day as well as the fifth year with the same ease. Adding in safe blocks and guards will only hurt wikipedia's overall goals, not help the ideas it promotes. The best thing to do is start handing out serious penalties for vandalism or obvious weasel words.
This doesn't even get into the idea of being able to do fast edits with out logging in, something that's helpful at times.