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!
...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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm honestly waiting for the first helicopter editor being reverted by the AI due to him being identified as a troll and vandal. It would probably serve as the proof that the AI is working correctly...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What do the specs have to do with whether or not the plane was used to shoot down another one?
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
That was my thought as well, when will Wikipedia come up with something that identifies bad editors and blocks their reverts.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
The plane is a air to ground attack aircraft, kind of like the A-10, it can't shoot down a plane flying at 30kft, so if you try and make it out to be an F-35 instead of an A-10, maybe people will believe that it wasn't a AAA battery that Russia lent to the Rebels and is instead a fighter jet that Ukraine is using.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
The problem is that the only people who care about whether or not they were shot down by this or that plane also don't care about whether they can or cannot do it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Well, it's technically possible for an A10 to down a civilian plane. It's not like you have to engage in high-g dogfights to win that battle...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Unfortunately, due to going camping this weekend, my next two days suck, but thanks for the offer. Maybe if you end up in this area again.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
My assumption was that the A-10 couldn't reach those altitudes, but it looks like I was wrong, as service ceiling on the A-10 is 45k feet, on the SU-24 it is 35k feet. It is possible for these aircraft to shoot down a civilian aircraft at cruise altitude, it is just highly unlikely. The SU-24 apparently carries 2 R-60 A-A missiles, so it is theoretically possible, however I don't believe that the SU-24 the Russians are pointing to ever flew above 10k feet. It is a scapegoat to try and draw attention from the AA battery that was smuggled back into Russia with two missiles fired.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
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.