Wikipedia to Highlight Edits from New Users
Wikipedia is adding color-coding to editing, making it easier for users to see what's been written by untrustworthy sources.
Just last week, it was revealed that Wikipedia would be adding a little something called 'flagged revisions' to the editing process. Edits to articles about living people will soon have to be approved by an experienced editor before they appear live on the website.
This week, rumor has it Wikipedia will soon introduce a color-coding setting that is said to highlight every word of the encyclopedia based on the reliability of its author and the length of time it has persisted on the page. Wired reports that this new feature, called WikiTrust, uses an algorithm that calculates author reputation from the lifespan of their past contributions. New contributions start out highlighted bright orange. The longer they stay on the page, the lighter it gets and eventually, it goes white and disappears altogether.
According to Wired, this is an optional feature that will be introduced sometime in the fall. Will you be using it? Let us know in the comments below.
Read more here.
- Xbox 360 "Super" Elite 250 GB Spied in Ads
- FCC: Let's Use One Rating System
- IRS Finding Tax Dodgers via Facebook, MySpace
- Scary: Bill Grants President Control of Internet
- Microsoft: Xbox 360 Fails a 'Thing of the Past'
- Newspaper Laptop Bag Thwarts Thieves
- Shoppers Hoarding Incandescent Lightbulbs
- Google Sets UK Office on Fire with Barbecue
- Google: Download a Million Books for Free
- Disney Purchasing Marvel for $4 Billion
- Apple Announces 'Rock and Roll' Event for Sept. 9
- Grand Theft Auto is Coming to iPhone
- New PS3 Ads Make Things Funny Again
- Palm Pre Canada Ad: Questionable Stereotypes
- Toyota Creating Anti-Drunk Driving Device
- Apple Blames Users for Exploding iPhones
- Internet turns 40; AP Lists Key Milestones
- Trojan Targeting Skype, VoIP Clients
- PS3 Slim More Power Efficient Than Advertised
Good I guess but treating all new users as suspect is a little wrong.
Wikipedia is adding coloring coding to editing, making it easier for users to see what's been written by untrustworthy sources.
That's a lot of gerunds for one sentence.
And FYI, Tom's does this as well. Posts from new users appear in a grey color instead of the usual black. Sometimes it's just good to know where the info originated.
Good I guess but treating all new users as suspect is a little wrong.
I disagree. I think it's no different than displaying how many times a user has posted in the forums under their avatar.
I like the idea, but I think its just too unruly to work properly. How does this tie in with "Anonymous" editing done without logging in? Will that text stay orange forever? That could be a little annoying. Also, lots of times I make updates to spelling, grammar, etc..., and I don't always log in, especially if its not my personal computer. I would think certain things just don't warrant highlighting (like making a word plural), but at the same time, changing a single letter can make the entire entry false (for instance, changing a boxer's win-loss record from 9-1 to 9-0 or vice-versa).
I refrain from using Wikipedia. The few times I used it I found questionable information.
I refrain from using Wikipedia. The few times I used it I found questionable information.
Questionable information or information you question? Some people reject ideas because they disagree with their preconceived notions, but others reject it based on further evidence gathered (so I had to ask).
Wikipedia is not a bad starting resource. However, like any source you should never rely on just one to make a conclusion. In general, 3 or more sources are preferred.
As to the highlighting? It an attempt to satisfy critics that will no doubt fall short. In fact, I bet critics will say it will create a false sense of security about the information present.
Wikipedia, on its own, is a horrible source. However, their better articles tend to link a LOT of sources that ARE scholarly and reliable. In this sense, it works to bring a lot of sources together in a convenient place, making it a good place to look for sources nonetheless.
However, I question how well this whole scheme will work out; I don't want to read pages highlight a whole myriad of colors. And what about the cases where someone makes an edit, but didn't notice that Wikipedia had logged them out? (you can't log into WP permanently) Their edit then gets highlighted as if they were any other anonymous noob, even if the editor was someone with a well-established account. (or even an administrator!)
Personally, I'll not be using this; if I need reliability in my sources, I will do as I'd always done; check the citations (or note the lack thereof) and use THOSE. This change is no suitable replacement for that. Nothing ever will be.
Quote: "based on the reliability of its author and the length of time it has persisted on the page"
They are forgetting something, the popularity of article's.
Article's where not much people come and the author is making a lot of mistakes or out of control. Will have a much lower chance to be edited. This can prolong the length of time those things are on the page. The system calculates the author more reliable of that, and this can happen in the other direction also.
This will create false sense of security even if this problem is also calculated in. Because you just can't be sure of the information anyway. The sources are the only good measurement for reliability.
I think highlighting edits based on an algorithm's computation of reliability is a great idea. I use Google and Wikipedia as my primary sources of initial information gathering starting points. They are tools so far beyond what was available to me in high school and college that I consider them life changing.
I am well aware that various individuals (especialy academic types) dislike Wikipedia. In my opinion, I think this frequent occurance is caused by an inability to accept how this tool has made it so easy for everyone to acquire knowledge.