Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday December 07 2015, @04:47PM   Printer-friendly
from the don't-be-a-meanie dept.

Tom Simonite writes at MIT Technology Review that the Wikimedia Foundation is rolling out new software trained to know the difference between an honest mistake and intentional vandalism in an effort to make editing Wikipedia less psychologically bruising. One motivation for the project is a significant decline in the number of people considered active contributors to the flagship English-language Wikipedia: it has fallen by 40 percent over the past eight years, to about 30,000.

Research indicates that the problem is rooted in Wikipedians' complex bureaucracy and their often hard-line responses to newcomers' mistakes, enabled by semi-automated tools that make deleting new changes easy. The new ORES system, for "Objective Revision Evaluation Service," can be trained to score the quality of new changes to Wikipedia and judge whether an edit was made in good faith or not. ORES can allow editing tools to direct people to review the most damaging changes. The software can also help editors treat rookie or innocent mistakes more appropriately, says Aaron Halfaker who helped diagnose that problem and is now leading a project trying to fight it. "I suspect the aggressive behavior of Wikipedians doing quality control is because they're making judgments really fast and they're not encouraged to have a human interaction with the person," says Halfaker. "This enables a tool to say, 'If you're going to revert this, maybe you should be careful and send the person who made the edit a message.'"


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by jdavidb on Monday December 07 2015, @05:35PM

    by jdavidb (5690) on Monday December 07 2015, @05:35PM (#272965) Homepage Journal
    Do you know how many years it took to get the "Yogurt" article title renamed so it would be spelled "Yogurt" instead "Yoghurt"?
    --
    ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Funny=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Funny' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 07 2015, @05:38PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 07 2015, @05:38PM (#272968)

    how many years it took to get the "Yogurt" article title renamed

    That implies that is has been renamed. Yoghurt redirects to Yogurt for me (en.wikipedia.org).

    • (Score: 2) by GlennC on Monday December 07 2015, @05:47PM

      by GlennC (3656) on Monday December 07 2015, @05:47PM (#272978)

      Yoghurt redirects to Yogurt for me

      That may be, but where does the WOOSH article direct to?

      --
      Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
      • (Score: 2) by Adamsjas on Monday December 07 2015, @06:40PM

        by Adamsjas (4507) on Monday December 07 2015, @06:40PM (#273008)

        Check Wikipedia in 5 minutes, and you will see it redirects to Obama.

      • (Score: 3, Touché) by maxwell demon on Monday December 07 2015, @07:19PM

        by maxwell demon (1608) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 07 2015, @07:19PM (#273024) Journal

        That may be, but where does the WOOSH article direct to?

        To Whoosh, of course.

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday December 07 2015, @06:14PM

      by ikanreed (3164) on Monday December 07 2015, @06:14PM (#272997) Journal

      Since the other response is just mocking you, I'll clarify. The article was originally located at "Yoghurt" a very uncommon English spelling. It took years to move it to the much more common spelling.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Monday December 07 2015, @08:42PM

        by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Monday December 07 2015, @08:42PM (#273053) Homepage
        Uncommon? Where? It's pretty darn common in the UK.

        It's still used by the national TV corporation: bbc.co.uk/food/yoghurt
        It's still used by the largest distribution newspaper: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-19005/The-good-yoghurt-guide.html
        Broadsheets use the spelling too: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-health/10563265/Theres-HOW-MUCH-sugar-in-a-low-fat-yoghurt-Skirting-the-Issue.html , http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/life/food/recipes/article4505513.ece
        Recipe sites use it: http://allrecipes.co.uk/recipe/7310/homemade-natural-yoghurt.aspx , https://www.cookipedia.co.uk/recipes_wiki/Yoghurt
        Producers and equiptment manufacturers use it: http://www.clandeboye.co.uk/yoghurt/ , http://www.yoghurtdirect.co.uk/

        It's even more common in some other English speaking countries, like Australia and New Zealand.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Tuesday December 08 2015, @05:46AM

          by captain normal (2205) on Tuesday December 08 2015, @05:46AM (#273213)

          That's only because all these organizations refer to Wikipedia.

          --
          "It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they have been fooled" Mark Twain
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @01:54PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @01:54PM (#273328)

          Do a google search for both and you will see one far outweighs the other in results.

          You should also note that the h less spelling is accepted and routinely used in pretty much every English speaking country including Brittan and Australia. Where as the version with the h is rarely seen in the US or Canada. Therefore it only makes sense to use the version that is acceptable everywhere, and is much more common.

          If you go look in the Oxford dictionary you will see that the even they agree the primary spelling has no H.

          Or you can look at the actual source word, Turkish I believe. No H.

          No matter how you cut it, it only makes sense to use the version with no H.

          • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday December 09 2015, @08:50AM

            by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Wednesday December 09 2015, @08:50AM (#273856) Homepage
            Did you not notice that the sources I sited are some of the biggest and most representative in the UK. The freaking BBC, for god's sake! "h" is not a minority thing, only Americans think that. As the dairy market in the UK has been flooded by foreign multinationals recently, it's been trendy to use a new hip spelling, but that new spelling is nothing to do with the changes in the transliteration rules nearly a century ago, they are just a fad pumped by marketting materials.

            Looking at Turkish is stupid. It doesn't have a "g" either. It has a g-bar, which traditionally, in particular when the word entered English, was transliterated as "gh". Modern attitudes to Turkish transliteration in no way alter words that are already in English.

            Americans can have their "g" spelling, I have no problem with that, they've got their own spelling conventions already, one more makes no difference. However, they should stop trying to teach the English, Austrialian and New Zealand speakers of the language how to spell. (And if you actually do the googling, you'll find your claims about the popularity of the two spellings are pulled from your arse. Yes, "arse", not "ass". In .au, "gh" isn't just significant, it's the *majority*.
            --
            Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @03:32AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @03:32AM (#273778)

    It took eight years and eight Requested Move discussions, according to a proponent of "yogurt."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Born2cycle/Yogurt_Principle [wikipedia.org]

    C.f.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrewa/Yoghurt_principle [wikipedia.org]

    which recommends that "insignificant discussions should be avoided."

    • (Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday December 09 2015, @05:57AM

      by jdavidb (5690) on Wednesday December 09 2015, @05:57AM (#273822) Homepage Journal
      The second link calls it insignificant, but the first link gives all kinds of reasons why it was significant. Throughout the ordeal there were plenty of people around trying to get their way by disrespectfully labeling the other side's reasoning as "insignificant." That kind of crap is one reason I no longer participate much at Wikipedia. The guys using that kind of language were camped at "Yoghurt" for years.
      --
      ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
    • (Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday December 09 2015, @06:00AM

      by jdavidb (5690) on Wednesday December 09 2015, @06:00AM (#273823) Homepage Journal
      Best significant reason from the first link: "it has been stable and non-controversial since it was restored [to the name 'yogurt'] in 2011." In other words, making this change reduced the amount of controversy and quarrel.
      --
      ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings