Research talk:Detox

Discuss Applications

Comment in this section

Offer an API like that of ORES to let the community make their own applications. If editors want to know their civility score, let them request a bot through established channels, or write javascript to tell them.

Hold a contest for editors to cooperate to achieve the greatest number of new vital, high readership, or high importance good articles with the least amount of incivility per talk page bytes added.

Study the articles with the most and least reverts per time and compare them to the articles with the most and least talk page incivility.

Publish the civility scores of prominent Wikipedians and Foundation officials because Wikipediaocracy will anyway.

Investigate the correlations, if any, between the time to resolve disputes, the extent to which resolved disputes persist over time, and the extent of incivility per byte of talk page content.

Award the most civil editors valuable cash prizes. EllenCT (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss Getting Involved

Comment in this section

• (moved from the research page) I am very interested in taking part in this project, but would you please direct me to where I would best register my interest? I don't see a link here and I would like to know where I can put my name on the table. Would you please also leave a message at my talk page or ping me so that I know where to respond? I find this project really fascinating and I think it's quite useful probably. The trick will be in defining what is actually harassment or personal attack, verses what is calling out harassment or personal attack done by others. It's really important not to let this thing Boomerang back on to the people who are trying to make a friendlier environment that is more collaborative. There is definitely a huge problem with in Wikipedia of people being toxic obstructionist editor's instead of collaborative. There is a great problem of lack of Integrity in Dialogue on talk pages. And there is really no enforcement mechanism at all that actually works. We have these boards and we have administrators but they really don't seem to work for my experience. Instead I think that we have roving gangs of editors enforcing certain agendas by being toxic and Wiki lawyering. SageRad (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

  Hi SageRad, after your comment the Research:Detox/Participants has been created where you can state your interest to participate. Basvb (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Discuss Other

Comment in this section

Some thoughts -

1. Is there so much harassment that we need machine tools to identify it?
2. Human editors already detect a lot of harassment, and so far as I understand, could make an identical "harassment identification" to this tool.
3. If reports from humans are not accepted, and so far as I know, they are not, then why is it useful to have an automated process to replicate something that can be done readily by humans?
4. There was a proposal in the talk for a "chill out" button, which I think would be a human-equivalent tagging tool equivalent to machine detection. I wonder how human-detection and reporting would compare to machine collection.
5. I wonder why it seems desirable to accept machine reports, but not human reports of the same behavior.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

1. Yes 2. Perhaps 3. Men don't like women telling them that they are using harassing language. The theory is that they might accept it better from a machine. 4. Interesting idea 5. See answer to 3. --WiseWoman (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Re (2) is it possible to prevent abuse of human reporting systems? EllenCT (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)