Wikipedia talk:Trust network/Archive

message: Can you put me on the list as trusting User:Christopher Mahan, User:Kim Bruning, User:Mark Richards, User:Eloquence and  User:MyRedDice. Oh and I both trust User:Jimbo and trust the people who he trusts ;). I assume I'm not sposed to edit the list myself, from the above discussion. Looks hard to edit anyhow. Thanks, Sam [Spade] 20:57, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think ideas in this vein may make all the difference towards reaching 1.0 quality levels. As an aside, my advice is to allow only contributing members to be ranked/rank others thusly (i.e. charge a minimum donation from those who take part. A long term idea, obviously, but it solves certain other issues, and would generate funds.). Sam [Spade] 21:00, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  awesome idea 

message: But to make this work properly, it would probably need a real database behind it with the ability to alter and rate your degree of trust etc, the ability to conceal who you trust and distrust from other users, etc. Sjc 04:56, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK Idea 

message: :Hey, buddy. Yeah, you. I noticed that you're looking bad on the Web O' Trust.
:How would you like a "trust boost" from me?
:What do you have to do? Well, it's simple: there are these articles listed on VfD that I want to see {kept|deleted}. If you'll vote my way, I'll hit you up with some good old trust.
(later)
:Hey, now that I've upped your trust in exchange for several votes, it looks like we're kinda aligned. Tell you what, I'm starting this thing, I call it the "Democratic-Republican Party". The trick is, we all vote together on VfD and we all up each other's trust level, and we all revoke trust from our opponents (I call them the Tories). Then we'll run Wikipedia!
(later)
:Yeah, well all of us in the "Red User Pages" trust other "Red Pagers", and we trust few or none of the "Blue Pagers". And the "Blue Pagers", well they trust few or none of us. But I think we have over 270 votes on VfD for {dubious page full of the sort of POV preferred by "Red Pagers"} to their 260, and on the poll question, "WikiPATRIOT Act to allow immediate perma-ban of Blue Pager Evildoer Terrorsists".
(later)
:We can't stay here always fighting the Blue Pagers over every little thing. And they're recruiting new users to share "trust points" faster than we are. Look, the Blue Pagers won't fight back. Once we delete Fort Sumter, they'll have to agree to let us take our half of the database and have our own wikipedia. What can do wrong?
-- orthogonal 13:47, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to Game this System 

message: Amen on looking at Advogato. Seems to me like the three-rank system and peer-rating they use works fairly well.
This could also be used on #wikipedia IRC to divy out channel op status and promote harder work and better behavior all around.
: Quinobi 03:12, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I retract the third sentance of that statement. What was I thinking? Quinobi 23:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Trust Metric

message: The top of the page says "Here users can list who they trust to make good edits (first column) and also list those who they trust to trust good editors. In the future this table might be
used to create bespoke recent changes where they users you trust (directly or indirectly) are missed out, or listed in a light font)."
#But the table has 4 columns now, and none appear to be "those who they trust to trust good editors".
#What's "they trust to trust good editors"?  Was it supposed to be "...to be good editors"?
#*"trust to trust good editors" = "Trusts the people whom the following trust" -- Jmabel | Talk 19:32, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
#"bespoke recent changes" -- I assume this means "custom-taiored recent changes lists"
#* Precisely. Not a word I'd have chosen, but clear in its meaning. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:32, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
#What's "missed out"?
#whould't you want changes by people you trust highlighted, not grayed out?
#* No, the idea is to be able to check the untrusted edits. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:32, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
#**To clarify: the main reason that people check the recent changes list is to spot vandals as they're vandalizing (see RC patrol). This proposal would basically have a similar effect as the button currently at the top of the RC list, "Hide logged in users", but would allow finer shades of trust (rather than just logged in/not logged in). — Asbestos | Talk 22:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Typos?

message: It seems like the trust concept has two major limitations: (1) it discourages new users as their input is less valued and (2) it's only valuable to those who have put together a trust network.  
Here's my alternative idea: If Wikipedia is based on the theory that more editors creates a better product, shouldn't the trustworthiness of a page be based on the editor diversity.  For example, if one editor wrote 99% of the copy, this would be much less trustworthy than an article that was writen by 25 different people with no one person contributing over 10%. SanDiegoPolitico 08:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. This would put a high trustworthiness on some of the most controversial pages, full of unreferenced POV statements, subject to mass warring. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Concept: Quantity of Editors