Wikipedia to Highlight Iffy Content
The promise of a democratic, user-generated, grass-roots bounty of online information -- free of ivory tower smugness or corporate control -- has been realized by Wikipedia. Or has it? Being a vetted authority in a given subject and having your content edited and scrutinized for accuracy still counts for something, right? Maybe I'm bitter about the demise of journalism, but quality information isn't always free (however, some of it is better than paid content).
To help lift some of the clouds of doubt from its oft-cited pages, Wikipedia will deploy a color-coded system to highlight questionable content, according to an article published by Wired. The optional "WikiTrust" feature will assign a color to every portion of Wikipedia text related to the trustworthiness of the author. ("Optional"? I guess some people prefer the ambiguity.)
Okay, so how does Wikipedia "know" who is trustworthy or not? It's a little simpler than it may sound, as new content is vetted through an algorithm that determines how often that particular contributor has added content to the site. The reasoning is that those who are regular contributors and whose content is not regularly taken down for inaccuracy (also crunched by the algorithm) likely are trustworthy folks.
Here's how it works, according to the Wired article: "Text from questionable sources starts out with a bright orange background, while text from trusted authors gets a lighter shade. As more people view and edit the new text, it gradually gains more 'trust' and turns from orange to white."
Wikipedia software developer Virgil Griffith, who is not involved with the WikiTrust project, has these choice words to say about the "survival of the truthiest" dynamics of Wikipedia, as quoted by Wired: "Everyone’s injecting random crap into Wikipedia, and what people agree with more often sticks around. Crap that people don't like goes away."
Maybe the least-trustworthy content should be highlighted in crap brown. Either way, it's an important accuracy barometer or, dare I say, BS detector.
| Category: | DIY, Life & Style, Tech Does Good, Technology |
| Subject: | Journalism |
Steve Tanner is a freelance writer based in the Santa Cruz Mountains who got his start covering the meteoric rise and subsequent crash-landing of Silicon Valley’s dot-com experiment.
More articles by Steve Tanner
|
Meatout Marks 25th Anniversary of Swapping Pork Chop for Bok Choy
By David Bois 13 hours ago |
|
Ladies Rejoice: Introducing the SheWee
By Sophie Rosenblum 1 day ago |
|
A Dog Sledding Adventure in Norway
By Lisa Rogak 2 days ago |
|
The Anti-Gossip: March 18, 2010
By Jennifer Birn 2 days ago |
|
The Phantom Knitter of Cape May Strikes Again
By Ethan Zohn 2 days ago |



