Talk:Trust metric

message: Well, I looked at the "trust metrics" wiki, and I was unimpressed by the quality, and unable to figure out how to edit a page, so I just gave up.
Anyway, the solution for Wikipedia is to add a "Rate this change!" feature.  Each change could be rated on a -3 to +3 scale.
:-3 : This user should be banned.
:-2 :
:-1 : Change has some minor problems, but nothing serious.
:0  : no opinion
:1  : slight improvement (grammar fix, small factual error)
:2  : big improvement
:3  : major contribution, verified to be correct
Then, users who themselves collect many "highly rated changes" would be able to bestow such status on others.  However, to prevent people from just falsely rating each other highly, you just have to make sure that someone can only have a high rating themselves after earning it from someone trustworthy.
The important thing is to start collecting the data.  After that, it should be very easy to calculate who is trustworthy.
Also notice that a "no opinion" rating would still be useful.  It would mean that someone inspected the change and found no egregious errors or sabotage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.42.16.16 (talk) 14:29, January 29, 2006 (UTC)
:This page should really be used to discuss the article in the question. For the issue of trust metrics and networks in Wikipedia, see WP:TRUST. TheGrappler 18:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Trust metrics" wiki

message: Moved this to the talk page, as it might be interesting for wikipedians, but irrelevant and self-referential in the article:
:Levien also proposes a trust metric for Wikipedia to aid quality control and to minimize the effects of Wikipedia:Vandalism.
--Tgr 18:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Wikipedia trust metric 

message: Is "kook" really an appropriate word used in a description?
The person in question is featured (twice!) on crank.net, he is famous for spamming discussion forums since before the web started. A gadfly provides a useful function despite being annoying. The person in question is just annoying. See http://en.nothingisreal.com/wiki/The_Arthur_T._Murray/Mentifex_FAQ for more details.
I'm reverting this to 'kook', unless someone can come up with a better term. Gadfly is completely misleading.
 203.143.164.204 (talk) 06:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Replaced the dubious "AI theorist" with "notorious individual". Although the original "kook" is fully justified.  Personal note to Arthur: talk to me before you do any editing of this article.  Keep in mind the possible consequences. J. Johnson (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unencyclopedic Tone 

message: Google page rank can be manipulated. Gordo 10:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See references at Search engine optimisation --Gordo 10:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: In particular Googlebombs and Googlebombing: Teh Rules --Gordo 10:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Page Rank 

message: Has anyone here seen the demo at The UCSC Wiki Lab?  I was hoping to find more Wikipedia discussion of this topic on this page, but, unfortunately, I'm probably looking in the wrong place.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.53.228.115 (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trust Coloring Demo

message: Xme's substitution of "computer progamming" as the context of trust metrics is questionable.  Yes, there has been work to implement trust metrics in software, which is a use of programming, but I have never heard of trust metrics being used in programming.  The proper and legitimate context of the concept appears to be as was originally stated, in psychology and sociology.  Therefore I am restoring the original form.  If it is desired to mention possible applications of trust metrics in the design of trusted networks or trusted computing, then the proper terms should be used; "computer progamming" is not the proper context. -J. Johnson (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questioned change (re "computer programming") 

message: There has been more anonymous editing of this article in regards of noted Internet kook "Mentifex", consistent with his past history of anonymous self-promotion and sock puppetry. (See references in article for details.)  I am therefore requesting semi-protection of this article (and its talk page) from anonymous editing. J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The  template is for requesting changes be made to articles that are already semi protected.  You're looking for Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. DoktorMandrake 19:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note however, that this page is unlikely to be protected on account of a single anonymous edit.  Page protection is only for cases of persistent vandalism. DoktorMandrake 19:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured as much when I saw the banner go up.  I think protection is warranted here, as this is not an isolated case for this article, and individual suspected is notorious for this kind of thing; semi-protection would, in the end, save time and effort.  But I gather we shall just have put up with this – Cassandra-like. -  J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

text: W.T.F. I am not mentifex. The section I removed about Mentifex being a crank is completely irrelevant to this article's subject. Why on earth are you re-inserting it?? 94.192.233.202 (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It ain't me, babe. 67.150.172.119 (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not irrelevant. The earliar version of the article cited "Mentifex" as an example of a problem that trust metrics has not adequately solved.  This led to a question of whether Mentifex poses a problem that needs to be solved.  I believe the URL given above adequately answers that in the affirmative.  Just within this article we can see mysterious, mystical and quite anonymous edits that either try to enhance Mentifex's reputation (such as being a "noted" AI theorist, when he is entirely not), or remove references that are unflattering.  So, at one level there is a question of whether any laudatory reference to Mentifex can be trusted, and as this goes to the heart of what trust metrics is trying to address I say it is very relevant to the article.  At at another level, there is a question of not just who is doing these anonymous edits, but (to take the current case as an example of the general problem): how can Mentifex prove he is not doing these edits?  - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  There have been other cases where the reliability of Advogate has been brought into question; there is no need to give Mentifex any additional publicity. 193.60.95.68 (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  This IP belongs to the University of Cambridge; Mentifex is not here. So stop being a paranoid asshole. 193.60.95.68 (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

text:  Et tu, JJ? Have you joined the Mentifex-basher witch-hunt? On 6 December 2008, as you have described above, you let out a loud whoop when you saw me enter Zoka near Green Lake. I walked over and sat down to your right. Although I was correcting your spelling, I did not at first realize that you were posting an anti-Mentifex diatribe. Have you  gone over to the Dark Side, JJ?. Back in 2003, you were so helpful in contributing Perl code to http://mind.sourceforge.net/perl.html and in teaching me how to properly indent my JavaScript AI code. Are you not grateful for when my employer and I stopped by your bicycle in Ballard and had you come along with us to Ray's Boathouse on Puget Sound? Did you not appreciate it when we left a new bike tire for you hidden in the bushes near Zoka? JJ, JJ, why do you persecute me? Posted 206.188.44.249 (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Arthur, listen up: the purpose of the talk page (and this is not my diktat, but WP policy) is to discuss how to improve the article  – not to debate whether you are the world's greatest AI theorist.  Nor am I (or anyone else) persecuting you. (It is as your friend that I try to dissuade you from being a jerk.)  You have a long, notorious, and documented history of being a real pest on various forums.  Which is to say that you pose the type of problem that "trust metrics" would address, and therefore relevant to the article.  (No?) But I would strongly suggest to you that this talk page is not the place to complain about your reputation, your feeling of being "bashed", or whether I am some sort of ingrate. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

text: No fucking shit, the article is not a place to debate whether Mentifex is the world's greatest AI theorist. Why do you keep adding that shit in?? Get your head out of your ass. 193.60.95.68 (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous edit from 193.60.95.68 (which I suspect will be purged soon on account of bad language) certainly does not advance the conversation.  And is futher reason why anonymous edits should be banned.  The gist of the comment ("the article is not a place to debate whether Mentifex is the world's greatest AI theorist") is correct, but only secondary, at most.  The key issue here is whether Mentifex (and/or anonymous editors) can add laudatory (but untrue) material, or remove (censor!!) material that is critical.  Which might be deemed as depending on a determination of what is truth (is he, or isn't he?), but I say that, based on reliable and verifiable sources, the matter is settled.  No debate.  So why do you continue to remove the links to those sources that settle the matter? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh shut up with the self-righteous bullshit. Your argument is totally unjustified. The key issue is the material that goes into the article, not your paranoid fantasies about who is editing it. I will point out again that you are adding irrelevant crap and removing sourced, relevant explanations of Advogato. 131.111.248.85 (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated anonymous edits 

message: http://cyborg.blogspot.com/2009/10/trustmetric.html is a statement by Mentifex in rebuttal of the cited Advogato Has Failed and in rebuttal of other attempts to use the Trust Metric to eliminate free speech. Posted 206.188.44.249 (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Arthur, "free speech" is not your personal license to intrude into adult conversations.  Your babblings on AI are entirely devoid of meaning (except as indications of your own mind), you have no credibility, and just about anywhere you show up on the Internet people get real tired of you.  The only significance of your "rebuttal" is to demonstrate just why people want some way of filtering out kooks like you.  - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebuttal by Mentifex 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Trust metric. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929120854/http://www.sandia.gov/epistemic/Reports/SAND2002-0835.pdf to http://www.sandia.gov/epistemic/Reports/SAND2002-0835.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928032102/http://www.trustlet.org/wiki/Trust_Metrics_Evaluation_project to http://www.trustlet.org/wiki/Trust_Metrics_Evaluation_project
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928032022/http://www.trustlet.org/wiki/AnalyzedTrustMetrics to http://www.trustlet.org/wiki/AnalyzedTrustMetrics
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified