[Wikipedia-l] the road to stability -- Yes! we have a winner!

Fri Dec 2 00:42:07 UTC 2005

Cooling/heating :  generate a crude 'trussst' metric; (# of edits +
length of activity) x (simple factor), with (factor) inculding some
aspect of community recognition.  As an article cools, slowly raise
the level of trussst needed to edit it (and vice-versa).  If a
would-be editor tries to edit the page, artfully redirect to the talk
page or a temp subpage, saying "please add your suggested changes or
modifications <a>here</a>. If you would like to work on a temporary
copy of this [section|article], you can do so <a>here</a>".

SJ

On 11/30/05, Neil Harris <usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> Kai Kumpf wrote:
> > i know this topic keeps reoccuring and so my point may not be very
> > original.
> > it has been said that wikipedia is "work in progress" and will
> > probably continue to to so. on the other hand it ails from the fact
> > that at no given point in time you can be certain to have a 1.
> > consistent , 2. unvandalized and 3. correct throughout wikipedia.
> > (compared to those three points the shortcoming of non-completeness
> > dwindles to almost nothing.)
> > let me draw your attention to the fact that the construction plans for
> > roads to stability - or at least local optima - have long been laid
> > out by physics. heat a dynamic system quickly then let it cool down in
> > a slower and controlled fashion, allowing less and less dramatic
> > changes to take place as time passes. simulated annealing
> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_annealing) is the magic spell
> > that might work for wikixyzs in a way similar to that in the real world.
> > the rationale behind my suggestion is of course that articles that
> > have matured over time are statistically speaking less likely to
> > improve when large modifications are made than relatively new ones.
> > some of the articles have reached a stage where well-meant editing
> > effectively mucks up the inner structure and logic. what i think
> > reasonable is to lift the threshold for substantial edits, maybe not
> > by limiting access but by asking for more substantial background
> > information from the authors (references, printed, electronic,...)
> > than the simple comment line. there is to much unproven and partially
> > unprovable information in the wp. that could have been prevented long
> > ago by obliging the authors to give references for their information.
> > besides, this task would make it successively harder to simply put
> > established statements upside down. whereas scientific journals have
> > peer review, wp only offers the weak weapons of discussion pages and
> > reverts - by others, mostly admins, i guess. why not confer a little
> > bit more of  responsibility to the authors? he/she could be aided by
> > predefined lists, checkboxes, comboboxes (for ref. type, etc.)
> > i find myself increasingly involved in hunting down vandals and their
> > work - partly due to the ease of use wp offers for non-serious edits,
> > too, and i can't help feeling that a larger and larger part of wp
> > keeps a larger and larger part of the community busy with just keeping
> > up the existing standard.
> > comments?
> > best
> > kai (kku)
> >
>
> I agree with Kai on this completely; if Wikipedia is about optimization
> by repeated random/evolutionary/whatever change, simulated annealing is
> _the_ classic way to achieve stable results.
>
> Once an article had been progressively and slowly "cooled" to a low
> enough "temperature", it would be effectively frozen. If an article was
> shown to be seriously wrong, or needed extensive revision, it could
> always be "warmed up" again, either partially or all they way. The old
> "cooled" version of the article could be marked in the history as the
> "previous stable version".
>
> In any case, as stable articles cooled down, they would change less and
> less often, making the use of the article rating process (where ratings
> must necessarily refer only to a single version) more and more useful.
>
> Question: what would should a good algorithm for "cooling" and "heating"
> pages be based on? Article ratings for the last few versions? Consensus
> in an "articles for cooling" page? Intervention by admins?
>
> Perhaps even some simple automatic heuristic like (for example) _very_
> slowly cooling pages that are read repeatedly by a wide range of readers
> over some significant time period and yet not edited (ie, implicitly
> "validated" in a tiny way by those readers) during that time? Perhaps
> articles should slowly "heat up" if not read for some time?
>
> -- Neil
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
++SJ