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.
Great! We can hook it to a random number generator and have it create all knowledge!
Actually it would be W.O.R.E.S. considering its name is the Wikipedia Objective Revision Evaluation Service.
But now that you mention it they missed a golden opportunity to call it the Holistic Objective Revision Evaluation Service or something along those lines.
...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.
Why a joke? Consider it a spam filter for Wikipedia entries. The more popular entries have unfortunately had to get locked down due to rampant vandalism. Wikipedia, for all it's faults, is one of the wonders of the modern age. Between it and Google, it's like a global repository of human knowledge... or at least, a summary of human knowledge, with links to deeper knowledge.
But while its power is derived from the masses of humans that create and edit that content, the masses are also its weakness. Humans are endlessly creative, and this tool will probably just teach trolls how to vandalize more creatively in order to fool the algorithm. Still, if it cuts down the noise for editors, it may end up being a good thing. It's hard to say until it's actually been deployed in the real world for a while.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
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.
The list of wikipedia astroturfing and politics turfing is beyond annoying. One of my favorite wiki feebles is when they told Philip Roth he’s not “credible source” on book he wrote
I wish I would of bookmarked the editors page, but there was this historian who specialized in mis understood beliefs in wikpedia, but he would have his updates removed because the standard "group think" belief was he was incorrect. He even posted the references required but was still reverted. He finally just edited his personal page, so it would be searchable, no idea if it is. His popular one was that no Canadian military was in vietnam, but Canada did have military medical there with hospitals and mash type units. He even linked to the CA GOV MIL page that had the medals given out during the vietnam war.
Don't get me started on the whole left slanted views given. Even the gamergate page is dripping in political correctness and not very subtle slanted views. Read the comments section on there, you can see how Jimbo had to ban anti-gg editors for awhile due to the bias.
I remember when MGTOW was coming about, some editors on wikipedia wouldn't allow a mens right page or mgtow to be referenced or mentioned. Finally they they came up with a plan, create a MGTOW page and redirect it to MTOW (Maximum Take Off Weight) to make sure MGTOW couldn't get a page.
Also the page for "Cultural Marxism" was deleted, and then a redirect to the "Frankfort School". The irony is dripping. Now according to wikipedia is a "Conspiracy Theory"...
Check out the differences on some differences in definitions for Cultural Marxism.
Urban Dictionary
The gradual process of destroying all traditions, languages, religions, individuality, government, family, law and order in order to re-assemble society in the future as a communist utopia. This utopia will have no notion of gender, traditions, morality, god or even family or the state. The Philosophy was proven not to Work already by Vladimir Lenin as he tried in vein to control and subjugate the people. He admitted before he died that capitalism was the only true system in which people understand how to live with each other.... Lenin knew that there were a few western Idiots who kept spreading the communist ideas long after Lenin gave up.... he called these people useful idiots as they had more emotion than brains and could be used to subvert the western states for a military takeover in the future as the citizens would already be perverted and sick and weak from poisonous ideas, decadent lusts and mindless entertainment.
Metapedia
Cultural Marxism is an ideology which emphasizes culture as a main cause of inequalities. Critics have seen cultural Marxism and its influence as an important cause of political correctness and as an important cause of a perceived decline of humanities, social sciences, culture, and civilization in the Western world.
Rational Wiki
The term "cultural Marxism" is most commonly encountered as a snarl word decrying everything right-wingers don't like, alluding to a conspiracy theory involving sinister left-wingers in the cultural and artistic spheres, including the media and academia, supposedly being engaged in a decades-long plot to undermine Western culture. With bonus anti-Semitism.
Wikipedia
DELETED.
... IF POSTER = DONOR MORE THAN US$15E5 THEN GOTO POST EDIT ...
rest of filter code goes here
Almost there.
Wikipedia
Holistic
Objective
Revision
Evaluation
Service
Absolutely correct! People cannot be sources for Wikipedia. Previously published material is the only allowed source for Wikipedia. And you can't just write a web page yourself and use that for your source. Now if Philip Roth wrote an article about his life and published it in a reliable periodical, that article could be used as a source, just as if I wrote an article about Philip Roth and had it published that article could be used as a source, too.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
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.
That's not the point.
The problem illustrated is that recognized experts in a field are routinely shouted down by pseudonymous man-children. This is exemplified, ironically enough in a Wikipedia project-space titled "Randy in Boise" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If Randy and a bunch of Randy's friends find a blog that says there were skeleton warriors in the Peloponnesian War, they can crowd-surf their opinion in and keep the experts' out. The Wikipedia is an exercise in gang warfare, not "crowd-sourced writing" as Jimmy-Bob likes to espouse.
They needed another word.
Objective Revision Evaluation Service = ORES
Objective Revision Evaluation Online Service = OREOS!