Jump to content

Proposal:Prevent vandalisation of basic information

From Strategic Planning
Status (see valid statuses)

The status of this proposal is:
Request for Discussion / Sign-Ups

This proposal is associated with the bolded strategic priorities below.


  1. Achieve continued growth in readership
  2. Focus on quality content.
  3. Increase Participation.
  4. Stabilize and improve the infrastructure
  5. Encourage Innovation



Summary

Weightage should be given to the contributer as well as the contribution


Proposal

A contribution should be judged objectively as well as subjectively, that is the seriousness of a contibutor towards his subject, his impartiality and fidelity to facts rather than one-sided opinions should be judged in a discussion that should be mandatory not only after the creation of a wikipedia article but also after every editing of an already existing article to prevent vandalisation of wikipedia articles. In other words, weightage should be given not only to subjective references but also to the objective intellectual status of a contributer, because there is no gaurantee that the information contained even in a validly notable reference is also accurate. In my view, wikipedia should also form a launching pad of new widely-sought information rather than just a referencing point for information that already exists elsewhere. To put it simply the editors/moderators should try to differentiate between users and misusers of wikipedia and give weightage both to the serious user-contributer and the contribution. Ariusmuhammadi 09:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Motivation

Key Questions

1. What are some of the user evaluation methodologies (rating systems) which are employed which can provide quantified indications of user legitimacy?

2. What are some of the algorithms or formulas which can be used to weight variables in creating a dependent variable which summarizes editor legitimacy?

3. What are the variables on a conceptual level which go to editor's legitimacy or "virtue"? For instance "seriousness", "NPOV-compliance",etc.

4. How should an editor's weighting be factored and against what variables which are risk level indicators of vandalisations?Geofferybard 23:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Potential Costs

References

Community Discussion

Do you have a thought about this proposal? A suggestion? Discuss this proposal by going to Proposal talk:Prevent vandalisation of basic information.

Want to work on this proposal?

  1. Vibhijain 09:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  2. .. Sign your name here!
Retrieved from "https://strategy.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposal:Prevent_vandalisation_of_basic_information&oldid=82816"