I don't know what your talking about, but if you explain it more
clearly, and in a more polite tone, I may be of some assistance.
Sam Spade
On 1/7/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:
I totally agree with the need for this. It's
not about replacing human
judgment, it's about giving tools to improve human judgment. For any
proposal to work though, I think we need a way of indicating that an
edit was "bad" in some sense. In eBay parlance, it would be like
negative feedback. But at least with that, you could start to count the
number of good/bad edits for a user. It would be incredibly handy to
know that a given user was +11,000 (56% good) (in other words, a very
active but controversial user - probably a pain in the arse), as
compared to +300 (99% good) - new, but doing a great job.
Any system can be gamed - you just have to make it not worth anyone's
time. Google pagerank can be gamed, but it takes a lot of effort and is
very difficult to do cheaply.
Steve
I also very much like this proposal. If nothing else it would clarify
me for who I am, and give certain people alot less room to insult and
stigmatise others based on tarbaby terms like "troll".
Sam Spade
Damnit, can you PLEASE stop replying to MY messages, including what
SOMEONE ELSE wrote, and not quoting it properly?
--
Alphax -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l