Register    Login    Forum    Search    FAQ





Board index » Current News » CURRENT NEWS post everything here




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Wikipedia to decide what's credible
 Post Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 4:14 pm 
Offline
Smashing neocons
Smashing neocons
User avatar

Joined: May 9th, 2007
Posts: 1711
Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text

Quote:
Starting this fall, you’ll have a new reason to trust the information you find on Wikipedia: An optional feature called “WikiTrust” will color code every word of the encyclopedia based on the reliability of its author and the length of time it has persisted on the page.

Now, researchers from the Wiki Lab at the University of California, Santa Cruz have created a system to help users know when to trust Wikipedia—and when to reach for that dusty Encyclopedia Britannica on the shelf. Called WikiTrust, the program assigns a color code to newly edited text using an algorithm that calculates author reputation from the lifespan of their past contributions. It’s based on a simple concept: The longer information persists on the page, the more accurate it’s likely to be.


Quote:
Since Wikipedia already keeps track of every revision, de Alfaro realized he could use that data to create a reputation system independent of human input. “Machines should work for humans and not the other way around,” he said. “So if you can get information without bothering people, via clever algorithms, this is much better.”

The Wiki Lab built its trust tool around the principle that Wikipedia pages tend to improve over time, or at least to move toward consensus. You can measure an author’s trustworthiness by looking at how long his or her edits persist over time, said UCSC graduate student Bo Adler, who developed WikiTrust with de Alfaro and graduate student Ian Pye. “When you add something to Wikipedia and it lasts a long time, you did a good job,” Adler said. “If it gets erased right away, you did a bad job.”

Based on an person’s past contributions, WikiTrust computes a reputation score between zero and nine. When someone makes an edit, the background behind the new text gets shaded orange depending on their reputation: the brighter the orange, the less “trust” the text has. Then when another author edits the page, they essentially vote on the new text. If they like the edit, they’ll keep it, and if not, they’ll revert it. Text that persists will become less orange over time, as more editors give their votes of approval.

“We try to predict when things are going to be deleted,” Adler said. “We want words that are going to be deleted to have a low trust, and words that are not going to be deleted to have a high trust.”

But some critics think there may be hurdles to running the trust tool over the entire site. “This isn’t a trivial web architecture design and implementation issue,” said computer scientist Ed Chi of the Palo Alto Research Group, who studies Wikipedia and social cognition. Since WikiTrust assigns a reputation score to every word in every article, running the program in real time will demand significant processing power and several terabytes of extra disk space.

But Wiki Lab researchers say they’re already working on making the program more efficient. Using the first version of WikiTrust, it took a regular computer 20 days to process five years of Wikipedia revision data. The latest edition cuts that time to four days, and it can calculate trust ratings for 30 to 40 revisions per second. “That’s on a single machine,” Adler said. “So it’s very practical for us to keep up with Wikipedia.”

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wikipedia to decide what's credible
 Post Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:05 pm 
Offline
Anti-Neocon novice
Anti-Neocon novice
User avatar

Joined: Sep 4th, 2009
Posts: 12
Location: the stagnant midwest
Thats the great thing about Wiki...it keeps evolving.

_________________
"The healthy man does not torture. It is the tortured who turn into torturers." ~ Jung


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wikipedia to decide what's credible
 Post Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 5:10 am 
Offline
Over the system
Over the system
User avatar

Joined: Mar 12th, 2007
Posts: 2484
Devolving more like. From a maggot to a shitworm.

_________________
Check your slides


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wikipedia to decide what's credible
 Post Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 11:51 am 
Offline
Super Anti-Neocon
Super Anti-Neocon
User avatar

Joined: Jun 27th, 2005
Posts: 33125
Location: Japan
I already decided that wikipedia isn't credible. So I could care less what they think is credible.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wikipedia to decide what's credible
 Post Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:55 pm 
Offline
Protesting War
Protesting War

Joined: May 21st, 2007
Posts: 218
Quote:
It’s based on a simple
but yet stupid
Quote:
concept: The longer information persists on the page, the more accurate it’s likely to be.


This however does not help you decide whether or not to agree with Wikipedia editors on what they consider to be 'notable' information.

I swear. The notion that Wikipedia is about "verifiability" not "truth" is its biggest lie. Its criteria for inclusion and consensus - i.e. "notability", is assigned to the loudest and most mainstream sources by default. Hence its extant text is the "truth" of Wikipedia. Its concept of "verifiability" is just a charade that allows editors to justify excluding unofficial truths or simply relegating them to more obscure articles.

_________________
--
National secrecy is a threat to human security.
--


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wikipedia to decide what's credible
 Post Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 11:15 pm 
Offline
Over the system
Over the system

Joined: Oct 26th, 2006
Posts: 2291
Location: Atlanta
This just in, Ruppert Murdoch to decide what news is credible.

_________________
Is your view of the world in sync with what you 'know' about the world?

"The state breaks everything and then blames freedom.
The state destroys everything and then blames those who interact voluntarily for that destruction."
-- Stefan Molyneux


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wikipedia to decide what's credible
 Post Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 1:05 am 
Offline
Super Anti-Neocon
Super Anti-Neocon
User avatar

Joined: Jun 27th, 2005
Posts: 33125
Location: Japan
Thanks tim for the link to my wiki page.

Wiki can't even do basic geography. And it won't let me edit the post about the island they have in the wrong location even though I LIVE ON IT.

Wiki currently reports that the Island I am on right now, is actually adjacent to itself.
It would be like saying The big apple is next to new york.

Cape Hatteras which is Croatoan, they call Cape Hatteras but then say Croatoan (which they ignorantly spell Croatan) is NEXT to and north of Cape Hatteras Island, near Roanoke (which is actually called Manteo now).

So hey guys I live on an Island that doesn't exist next to and Island that actually does exist, that I am actually on. According to wikipedia.

Can I edit the page about the Island? I only live HERE! Nope. Can anyone living here edit the page? Nope, we aren't experts on the subject. lol!!!

My brother wrote a book about the history of the Island from its AMerican Indian name Croatoan to now. Can he edit the page? Nope.

only self appointed experts can change it. If you change it, some idiot changes right back.

I just want to say take 2 seconds and look at a map
Image

See that Croatoan (with two Os) right above Cape Hatteras? Just like Roanoke I. Is written below that Island. (which is now called Manteo by locals, as is the name of their highschools water tower etc.) Jesus how hard is that? Plus if they didn't know the answer how the hell did they just invent a third Island between Cape Hatteras and Manteo called Croatan which isn't even a word for any of the places.

This is not to be confused with Roanoke Virginia which isn't even close to us. It's no different than the multiple Springfields in many states. But there never was a Croatan only a Croatoan and it's always been Cape Hatteras, theres never been a separate Island near Hatteras called Croatoan much less Croatan.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wikipedia to decide what's credible
 Post Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 1:58 am 
Offline
Smashing neocons
Smashing neocons
User avatar

Joined: May 9th, 2007
Posts: 1711
LOL that's funny Ry! I heard Mike Rivero say that Wikipedia allegedly won't even let him edit pages on "Michael Rivero" because he is not a recognized authority on Michael Rivero :lol:

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wikipedia to decide what's credible
 Post Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 1:34 pm 
Offline
Fights PNAC daily
Fights PNAC daily
User avatar

Joined: Sep 29th, 2007
Posts: 544
Location: USSA
This color coding could come in handy, anything wikipedia deems "reliable" we can almost automatically deem unreliable, and anything deemed unreliable, is probably reliable.

_________________
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”. - Ben Franklin

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” - Thomas Jefferson

If 50 million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." -Anatole France

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." -Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." -Galileo

END THE GODDAMN WARS!


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Board index » Current News » CURRENT NEWS post everything here


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: