Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Creates AI System To Filter Out Bad Edits (thestack.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Wikipedia has developed a new artificial intelligence system aimed at improving the quality of its entries and detecting both mistakes and damaging edits made to its articles. The technology is named the Objective Revision Evaluation Service. The Wikimedia blog explains that the system is able to highlight incorrect edits, allowing editors to filter them out from the "torrent" of new amends and scrutinize their credibility. The entire service and process is open – with Wikipedia making revision scoring transparent and audit-able by publishing the source code, performance statistics and project documentation publicly under open licenses.
The acronym for wikipedia etc is W.O.R.S.E?
Great! We can hook it to a random number generator and have it create all knowledge!
,Bad admins like Bsadowski1, Elockid (checkuser abuser), Nawlinwiki and NeilN. You can see more bad admins by Checking the Block log and the WikiInAction reddit.
...we'd reach the singularity in an hour. That's right, the price of a cup of coffee is all our future robot overlords need.
So no more edits to the SU-24 specifications to support the russian regime lies about the downing of the MH17?
Can we please create a "safe space" where we can make sure nobody says anything negative in a Wiki article?
You mean all of them?
Articles automatically rolled back by AI without a human being "guarding" them, truly the future has arrived
"I'm sorry Dave I can't let you correct I grammar."
Now if the AI can be programmed to weed out the;
*Man-Child admins who lack authority in real life and become a Wikipedia admin to (over)compensate
*Agenda Warriors who go there to further their ideological battles
*Bullies
*Harassers
*Stalkers
*Jimbo Wales
we might see some improvement.
It's a steaming pile of shit and nothing they do can make it better.
Actually, there is one thing. Privatize it, disable anonymous edits, and make editors legally responsible for incorrect or libelous information.
They are newbie biting, bad faith assuming tools. They are Cluebot and the Abuse Filter. I see newcomers leave Wikipedia every day because their edits were reverted by Cluebot, and the Abusefilter is security by obscurity (which is in direct opposition to Wikipedias openness). Also Wikipedia has over 50 million in the bank, it doesn't need to have ad banners at the top of articles.
I'm the inventor of the scroll lock key but everytime I ad this to my Wikipedia profile it gets deleted.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Actually they don't respect your opinions and if there is a proper edit or contribution you will find tons of robots says: kick yourself out of here please );
At the very least it cannot get any worse.
My last attempt to contribute something sensible to Wikipedia was removing what I deemed a vandalism attempt in an article about Greek columns where a certain person was named along with his sexual preferences that are allegedly inspired by Greek society. Which was evidently relevant to the understanding of Dorian column styles, it seems, for my removal of said person's name along with the pertinent information about his sexual preferences was dutifully restored mere minutes later.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
To break such a citation feedback loop, prefer a pre-2001 citation for claims about applicable topics. By the time Wikipedia came around, the Scroll Lock key had been present for well over a decade, so if there were a citation, it's more likely than not that there would also be a pre-2001 citation.
... IF POSTER = DONOR MORE THAN US$15E5 THEN GOTO POST EDIT ...
rest of filter code goes here
With this one, my padewan learner.
Don't trust the self-identified Progressives who control Wikipedia. Those self-righteous authoritarian elitists will use this tool to censor anything they consider politically incorrect. There can be little doubt that such censorship is among the main reasons this technology was developed.
I recall a few years back as I was reading up on the fascinating Wikipedia article on the Norman Conquest when right there in the middle of the paragraph was " is a faggot!"
I'm sure the person named attended the same grade school as the person who made the edit and I'm sure all the other students at that school thought it was hilarious. The person who was named probably didn't appreciate the entry regardless of his actual sexual orientation.
So I'm assuming the Wiki Artificial Intelligence will lessen or halt such edits?
How long before this Wiki AI becomes self-aware and starts adding it's own edits as a way to find Sarah Connor?
There are a few interesting angles to this idea.
Wikipedia is suffering a large number of established [networked] editors who spend all of their time reviewing and deleting contributions. Their bias in doing this asside it isn't very nice to write articles while interacting with a group of overseers who consider that work beneath them. In the best case scenario you have a great guy with lots of valuable insights who simply doesn't know what it is like to put effort in something and seeing it deleted. I'm not referring to the quality of the content but to the type of interaction. (As a best case scenario we should assume the contribution should have been deleted.) It feels like you are scrubbing the floor while someone else is pointing out the spots you've missed.
As long as large numbers of edits have to be reverted the wiki needs large numbers of these overseer type editors who are simply toxic and uncooperative when it comes to the real work at hand. It could be that the above described kind of automation at the very least reduces this need.
Another interesting angle is where this robot looks at new contributions. I believe the correct approach would be for it to look at all contributions to avoid feeding into the now established view that new editors (read article writers) are accidents waiting to happen.
There is also the perception. I'd much rather be told by a robot that my contribution was something awful - by a robot who does nothing else, than being told by an editor that my contribution leaves much to be desired - by an editor who does nothing else.
And finally: It is quite unusual for this wiki to enjoy technical improvements unless they are of the kind that can not be stopped by the "lets keep everything the way it is" type of Luddite consensus. If there is going to be progress it will be of this kind.
Is it called SJWbot?
Does it scream rape?
by having an automated system to delete all entries that say anything but earth is flat :)
> Don't get me started on the whole left slanted views given.
To one far to the right, everything else seems left. Duh.
Enough with the denialism [User:Beeblebrox/The unblockables].
The only "denialism" here is learning how to "deny" the unblockables an opportunity to accuse you of edit warring. It starts by not edit warring.
It's ruled by powerful cliques like wikiproject feminism
You are correct that I haven't been active in controversial topics, especially those related to civil rights of a particular group. But the examples in Beeblebrox's essay appear to skip at least one step of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.
Wikipedia doesn't make it obvious, but a reverted user should refrain from immediately making the same changes again. Instead, the user should take it to Talk:.
I've tended to have more success by not rushing through the discuss phase of BRD. Waiting 7 days between the post on Talk: and redoing the changes lets me either elicit more detailed feedback on the problems with a change or, barring that, use silence on the talk page as evidence of change in consensus.
If you don't want to be accused of edit warring, don't edit war.
Great Idea!
You could call this innovative approach "Encarta", or "encyclopedia britannica"