Talk:Reviewed article version

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Moved here from Talk:Default view of content:

I have changed the original idea quite a lot after a conversation with Usher (on of the mediawiki developers) at Chaos Communication Congress in Berlin Germany. If you don't like this change I would be very interest in discussing your and my ideas. Arnomane 20:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Think that this can be simplified a little bit more. If only users which have contributed to eg more then 30 stable articles a part of around 20% the move to stable could be made automatic without the need of manual intervention by admins. To do so we would only need a strictly formalized voting process. There could be a voting page beside article and discussion which has checkboxes for pro and contra and a textbox for comments. If a new version of this page is created every voting user can vote 1 time on this page (if the user edits the page a second time, his first input should be displayed for changes) for a given (configurable) timeframe. Past that time an automatic evaluation should take place and this version of the voting page should be locked. The restriction to voting users should prevent us to get votes of fake accounts, while the automatic process should prevent us from needing admins for every move to stable. --Mijobe 10:09, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First of all I want to excuse myself for the spelling errors, my mother languaes are german and netherlands, so my english is not the best. I hope you don't see my spelling as a messurement for the quality of the contributon

In the small hope still here is readed, I have an propsoal similar to do one of Mijobe, and working in contrast to a web of trust. The idea is to replicate the science publication system in wikipedia.

Science works roghly like the following:

You have 3 instutions working togehter: Producers (Scientists), a Distributer, and an Archivar. A cylce looks like this

  • The producer writes an article (with the use of knowledge he aquires from the Archivar)
  • The producer send his article to a Distributer having an as high as possible reputation (for example the magazine "science")
  • The distributer sends the article to one or several other Scientists (Producers) with a high reputation for review
  • If these assert the quality of the article it gets published.
  • The reputation of the said Scientist/Producer rises, as well if the article is really good, the reputation of the distributor.
  • The archiver collects information from distributers of high reputation and saves it for use by other Producers as basis.

Thats a model how that system keeps itself together.

I think this well proven system could replicated in wikipedia to provide quality content.

  • The Distributer and the Archivar are Wikipedia.
  • The Producers ars the Users.

A keyword core concept in the science system is reputation. While in science world it is a spongily value, hard to meassure, in this proposal to wikipedia it would be an integer attribute attached to each user. Then this system could work automatically almost like the science system. Users write articles, they get reviewed by one or several users with high reputation (positive or in cases of vandalism even negative), and their reputation is ajusted by this. So new reviewers can arise. In case of strong misuse administrators or powerusers or public polls the Wikipedia powersystem works can intefer with the reputation settings.

Additional advantages of such "scientific" system:

  • popsocket users become almost useless, since the popsockets don't have any reputation.
  • Users a strongly encouraged to write really articles. (Everybody has experience in, how motivating any scoring can be for humans. Even if the score has no use in the rest of ones life. See for example any game.)
  • There is a sane way, of tagging article versions to be good. (for default view by anonymous users or for use in wikipedia hard copies)

The system needs some fine tuning,

  • Above all I would say, KISS - keep it simple.

Some questions would be:

  • How to initially spread repuation, until the system stablelises itself and starts running gently.
  • How to spread reputation when approving an article on the series of editors who contributed.
    • everybody equally?
    • The last editors more?
    • To those more, who have already more reputation. (This sounds unfair, but it is in fact the case in the science system, and after all it runs quite well.)
  • Should there be a reputation cap? I would say yes, or more it should be a decresive scale, meaning you slow down when you go higher.
  • Should reputation decrease in time? I would also say yes, it is the same in "real life". If you are not seen for quite a while, or don't write/edit any articles anymore, you're reputation just fades slowly with time.
  • Should reputation been given when reviewing? I would also say yes, it should be relative small in contrast to editing, but so it should be a reasonable motivation to review.
  • Should reputation be given, for other activities in wikipedia? Don't know.

Some other toughts, Reputation is just another aspect of trust-worthiness. You could also call the things trust-points instead of reputation-points.

  • Like trust is said to be a good that increases with its use, I think it should be the same with reputation. (therefore receiving trust-points when sucessfully reviewing an article.)

One last things I want to comment about, I don't think reputation sould be ever be used in public polls as a measurement of weight. This go's directly the democratic principle of wikipedia. I think if handled correctly reputation does not affect the democracy. Its just a tool in the reviewing process. Its just like in real life. A nobel prize laureate does not count more in an election than anybody else. So like in any democratic nation, where reputation is in fact a tool for publication it does not affect democracy. Axel Kittenberger 14:14, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Suggested extensions[edit]

I think there should be more than just one label, "stable", for an article, but there should be an option to mark it in a number of ways. Specifically, the next step up from stable should be "featured", and for the step up from that articles that have been reviewed and verified for accuracy by academics in the relevant field. Having articles properly reviewed, and marked as such, will be the biggest possible boost to Wikipedia's credibility.

Additionally, I think the plans to have only the latest stable version shown should be made a side-goal of this project, as it's likely to hold up the other goals which IMO are more important. Perhaps instead of showing the latest stable version, stable versions can be marked in the page history as a tool for editors rather than readers, and if the system were to be a success, we could plan extending it. If mirrors used only stable pages we'd already be part way there. Joe D 14:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]