A bit like cryptography? If it needs obscurity to withstand gaming it's
worthless?
A metric like "this user's edits are routinely reverted" or "routinely
reverted on topic X" might be useful. Ditto a study of words used in the
revert edit's summary.
Beyond that I'm not convinced it's feasible to calculate a score for trust,
just because editors can edit in many different areas and ways. As an
extreme example, a FA editor or project page developer who uses BRD to
achieve more quicker, will score very differently from a POV warrior who
writes obscure but slightly skewed pages, or a sock user. the page text will
show reversion, recreation or aging which is useful... but the author's
trust rating will be very variable.
FT2
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:48 AM, Brian <Brian.Mingus(a)colorado.edu> wrote:
Playing devils advocate, isn't there far too
little information available
about your average editor? How do you determine at a glance the reputation
of an editor whose edits you are reviewing, or with whom you are having a
conversation? Further, since the full history dump is publicly available
and
the given algorithm is just one of many related measures that could be
computed, is it pointless to try and stop the information from being
released? Lastly, in the interest of transparency should the information
not
be made available? Shouldn't the goal be to create an algorithm that can't
be gamed? It may actually be the case that this one is not very subject to
manipulation. The authors are very astute and it would take an awful lot of
effort.