[10:02:26] halfak: I just checked your Snuggle Wikimania video at Youtube :) [10:02:29] It's good [10:05:52] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwMBLrAHJLM [10:06:14] halfak: I failed to see where I was credited though. I was kindof waiting for it :P [14:46:53] Hey tos. thanks for the link. [14:46:59] hey halfak [14:47:04] Sorry I forgot to ack you in the pres. [14:47:08] That was not intentional. [14:47:09] I assumed you already saw the link [14:47:12] Also, :( [14:47:40] You guys got an ack in the paper, which I'd say is more important. [14:47:58] But it's still lame that I didn't say so in the presentation. [14:48:15] * tos was excited to see his name coming up somewhere [14:48:15] This is only one of the presentations I've given about Snuggle though. [14:48:33] Just kidding though. It was a good presentation. :) [14:48:43] You were ack'd in the presentation I gave to the WMF and will be in the presentation I'll give in Toronto in April. [14:48:44] Do you have any submissions planned this Wikimania? [14:48:45] :) [14:49:01] Good to hear. [14:49:29] Yup. Working on one. [14:49:30] https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/WikiCredit_-_Calculating_%26_presenting_value_contributed_to_Wikipedia [14:49:44] I have a more substantial writeup planned. [14:50:26] hmm, interesting [14:50:36] What do you plan to use it for? [14:51:14] To convince academics and other experts to edit Wikipedia. [14:51:35] Right now, if there's no good way to show that you made some meaningful contributions to the wiki. [14:51:46] I want to allow people to claim credit for their contribs. [14:52:13] But there's a ton of implications of this that ought to be carefully explored. [14:53:39] I personally feel that something of this sort might end up being counterproductive... [14:53:50] (To be honest) [14:54:33] ?? [14:55:01] T13|sleeps: We're talking of halfak's propsal. [14:55:34] Which proposal? Aaron, you're getting married? [14:55:42] I'm already married :P [14:55:46] https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/WikiCredit_-_Calculating_%26_presenting_value_contributed_to_Wikipedia [14:55:55] Why do you think so tos? [14:56:47] Well, tos said counterproductive and I assumed married.. :p [14:56:48] We have several kinds of editors here on WP. If the key audience is experts and acedemics, then we're using the wrong carrot to ask them to edit wikipedia [14:57:11] We already have contribs as one measuring stick of how productive you are [14:57:52] ^ We talk of marriage, and T13 quits :P Typical [14:58:40] Contribs is not a good measure of someone's contribution. [14:58:47] Yes [14:58:58] And what would work even better will be something along the lines of how many GAs you have contributed to. Or since not everyone contributes to high quality articles, something along the lines covering all article grading. [14:59:13] So, who gets credit for the GA? [14:59:29] And when someone claims that they wrote the majority of it, how do you verify? [14:59:34] So for example, we assign some sort of points system based on what quality your article is, and how significant your contribution to that particular article is. [14:59:52] That sounds like what I'm hoping to do with WikiCredit. [15:00:00] Can you sum up the proposal in 120 characters or less please? Long things are hard to read on mobile [15:00:25] T13|sleeps: Every edit is rated. Good contributers rewarded. [15:00:42] I want to build a system to (accurately) measure the value added by an editor to the encyclopedia and then let editors claim credit. [15:01:15] halfak: Yes. But please do not make edits the focus of that system. Articles will be much more better [15:01:31] :) Same difference [15:01:31] How do you measure such a diverse thing? [15:01:46] We've had some good ways to do it since 2007. [15:01:46] The reason for that is because of the second category of editors it will affect. They are the ones I fondly call the Hat-collectors [15:01:58] That's fine. [15:02:07] I want to make the hats == improving the wiki. [15:02:12] If you get a hat this way, good. [15:02:40] Yes. If you say you get points for every edit you make (Current system) ==> Go make thousands edits [15:03:04] If it's for making quality articles ==> Win Win situation [15:03:17] Well, if those edits are tiny, you won't get much credit for them. [15:03:30] It is for making quality articles -- with a focus on which articles are read. [15:03:37] Yes. [15:03:46] How do you weigh those that make 1000 minor edits against someone who makes a GA against someone who has never edited article space and focuses on templates and modules instead? [15:04:04] Basically, I want to give credit for contributing high quality content to articles that get read. [15:04:24] Templates and modules is hard and I think I'm going to allow that to remain out of scope for this proposal. [15:04:43] T13|sleeps: You probably cannot. No system will be fair enough. But in this case, the prime objective is better articles, which this can cover [15:04:50] But I'm interested in discussing ways to measure value added with regards to templates and other non-article wiki-work. [15:04:55] That's going to cause grief for editors like me. [15:05:14] Hopefully, you'll be mostly unaffected. [15:05:24] halfak: Too many eggs in one basket. Let's not make every edit look like a race for points. [15:05:50] I don't think that is the right use of that colloquialism. [15:06:12] If every edit is a race to add lots of high quality content, I don't think we'll be sad. [15:06:20] What will happen is people will say, "you're not useful because you're not scoring in this system" [15:06:35] Ahh.. That's where my privacy strategy comes in. [15:06:39] Dang. I meant to say that we shouldnt try to do everything with WikiCredit and end up doing nothing. A small but clear focus would set a high precedent [15:06:41] Your score is private. [15:06:47] Only you will be able to view it. [15:06:52] But you can make it public if you want. [15:06:58] ^ Bad idea [15:07:03] Or you can grant access via a token for limited periods of time. [15:07:12] I agree with tos here so far. [15:07:18] Boo. Don't stomp on the idea until you hear the end of it. [15:07:28] So why is keeping scores private a bad idea? [15:07:32] I said so far.. :p [15:08:07] halfak: Keeping scores may not be. Making them private and then allowing to make them public. That's one idea I disagree with [15:08:26] I think templates and modules should be easy to incorporate into the system.. [15:08:49] Everything public gives some transperancy of sorts, even though it has its limitations. Those need substantial discussion [15:09:18] The problem is identifying them when they appear. Subtemplates require expansion to find. That's computationally difficult. [15:09:32] The algorithm will be public. [15:09:39] That's your transparency. [15:09:49] It's a simple formula of how much the edit would be worth in an article times the number of article transclusions [15:09:50] Not the algorithm, the scores [15:10:18] T13, negative. Still have the subtemplates issue. [15:10:28] How so? [15:10:35] Why does making scores public aid in transparency? [15:10:40] They aren't public now. [15:10:44] Yet they exist. [15:10:50] You don't have to expand anything. [15:10:50] I just haven't finished computing them yet. [15:11:33] halfak: Take the example of "edits by month" script that has to enabled through commons.js [15:11:53] I don't think what this is. [15:11:57] *know [15:12:01] You just assess the edit to the template. Then ping the api to get a transclusion count in ns=0 [15:12:26] That transclusion count might be zero because it is translcuded from another template. [15:12:55] Have you ever tried it? [15:12:59] Yes [15:13:08] halfak: https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pcount/index.php?name=TheOriginalSoni&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia The edits by month and list of most edited pages do not appear for all editors. Only those who have enabled it (I think) [15:13:30] The transclusion count includes transclusions of transclusions. [15:13:43] Oh! this tool, Yeah, it's still private by default. [15:14:35] halfak: Everything the tool is based on (Contribs) are public, like your algorithm. But not all editors enable them [15:14:35] The tool is, but anyone interested can get the data without permission as it is public. [15:15:05] Sure. This is true. Making things easy is very different than making things possible. [15:15:09] Also, this tool isn't loading. [15:15:14] halfak: In several RFAs, I have seen people request candidates to make it available for public so it can be seen by everyone. [15:16:10] tos: indeed. [15:16:13] So it has become yet another measuring stick for people to judge others. [15:16:17] Sure. [15:16:25] Seems like a good one to me. [15:17:36] I do not want yet another one of these coming in, unless it's reasonably good (In terms of being accurate) AND transparent. [15:17:51] So, what is the transparency that you'd want? [15:17:58] Why do you need to know everyone else's score? [15:18:00] Either make all scores public [15:18:20] Or make them all private (So no measuring stick. Just people competitng with themselves) [15:18:33] All public can obviously be opt out. [15:18:42] Why should they all be public? [15:18:54] tos: after the last discussion about that tool on meta, it is public by default in "most" wikis [15:19:09] T13|sleeps: Not enwiki though [15:19:10] Only a few wikis held oiy [15:19:43] Through that tool, correct. [15:20:07] halfak: Because if it's between public and private, I am reasonably sure this will end up another point of contention between the (newer) hat-collectors and the older veterans. [15:20:44] Explain. [15:21:50] You make the score public only on opt-in. [15:22:25] The newer hat collectors consider it good, and opt in, in a way to show off their scores and check others' scores (Not that it is wholly bad) [15:22:57] I still think this scoring system is a bad idea. It will cause discrimination against the "occasional" editor. [15:23:18] The veterans consider it as a tool that is useless, and counterproductive. Arguments like "Wikipedia is not a social platform" and "Not a race" will pop up. [15:23:42] It will cause discrimination against those that don't want to or don't know how to opt-in [15:24:03] ^ Yes [15:24:46] Eventually, a section of editors have the score public, and demand it as one of the few parameters that people need to opt in for (esp in somewhere like RFA). The veterans consider everyone who makes it public as noobs. [15:25:34] That's a fun set of hypotheses you guys have. [15:25:38] ^ Divide between the two widened. Some editors leave as collateral damage, disgusted at how their encyclopedia is taking a turn for the worse. [15:25:38] ''If'' it is to happen, it needs to be able to assess everything and present a relative score in a productive manner. It also needs to be able to [[WP:AGF]]. [15:25:46] -End mental simulation- [15:25:52] It's interesting that, in this hypothetical world, the veterans don't run RfA. [15:26:33] * tos only makes mental simulations based on all the fact that he knows and predicts accordingly [15:26:52] "it need sot be able to asses everything" will never be possible. A lot of important wiki work takes place off wiki. [15:26:59] It's amazing how often I get referred to as "no-one" in discussions... [15:27:03] tos "knows" the future? [15:27:15] I'd say veterans do run RfA. [15:27:23] ^ this [15:27:38] There's already a good number of editors who dislike the usage of contribs as a measure of experience. I am among them, but am still guilty of checking on contribs numbers to make a quick-assessment. [15:28:34] Like everyone, I just predict what i think will happen :P [15:28:54] I think the world will end. [15:29:15] That seems like an inevitable results of entropy. [15:29:31] Ya know, when the sun grows enough to swallow it in a few million or billion yeara.. [15:30:43] halfak: I'd think that it would be fair to leave offwiki stuff out of scoring, but everything onwiki should be assessed. [15:31:00] Some things on-wiki don't lend themselves to assessment. [15:31:07] How much value does an essay add to the wiki? [15:31:18] Surely there are some essays that are more useful than others. [15:31:31] Unfortunately, we're getting a blizzard here and I have no net except for phone. [15:31:47] Also, how do I score contributions to policy/guidelines? [15:31:51] And campus is closed. [15:32:20] See, mainspace has some well-understood properties. It's also the point of Wikipedia. [15:32:23] Good questions, and I think you're getting on track with what would need to be done. [15:32:34] halfak: Take only articlespace. That's something everyone agrees is useful. [15:32:44] Meh. I don't think these other measurements *should* be done. [15:32:51] I'd be happy to help answer those questions once I get some net. [15:33:18] No tethering? [15:34:00] My turnover date is the 11th and I only have 600Mb left out of 4Gb [15:34:11] I'm pushing my limit on data. [15:34:19] If WikiCredit does gain prominence among editors, I only hope it gets them to work on building out encyclopedia more than anything else. Nothing sends this message clearer than making it on articlespace only. [15:35:01] tos: templates and modules are transcluded in article space and need assessment too. [15:35:47] When editing a template used in articles, you are in essence editing all of those articles. [15:36:05] T13|sleeps: Agreed that they are useful. But the same applies for WikiProjects and Proposals too. [15:36:17] T13|sleeps, you're not wrong. I look forward to finding ways to include such work. [15:36:33] Templates are very important, but I'd rather keep them out of any assessments. [15:36:36] I'll be happy to help however I can. [15:37:21] (Obviously personal opinion) [15:37:56] On a semi-related note, I'm planning on applying for the position heatherw posted on tbe teahouse talk I think. [15:38:21] So I'll be a WMF paid contractor for a bit.. lol [15:38:53] T13|sleeps, let me know if you need a letter of recommendation. [15:39:12] I can't affect the hiring process, but I'd be happy to talk about working with you :) [15:40:06] I talked to heatherw in pm last night and I'm one of the people she was hoping to attract with that post. Lol [15:40:22] excellent [16:03:36] Looks like T13 will be apt for that post :) [16:13:56] tos, any progress on getting connected to WMF Labs? [16:15:53] Not really. Ever since I got BSODed and got busy with other work, it kindof slipped from my radar [16:16:26] Didn't realize I was DCed for 30 minutes watching TV. What I miss? [16:16:30] I do intend to get back to try it, but it seems like I'm always busy with something [16:16:39] :\ [16:16:50] :46 was my last timestamp [16:16:54] T13|sleeps: Nothing except me saying " Looks like T13 will be apt for that post :)" [16:17:09] Ahh. Yes. [16:17:22] I know how it goes tos. [16:17:55] Sorry. I still intend to get my laptop formatted the first moment I get a chance to [16:18:14] Have you ordered the additional RAM? [18:11:55] halfak: Not really, I wanted to ask the local laptop repair guy before I order one [18:12:43] Gotcha. If you have someone install it for you, make sure you watch them. It's super easy and if you see what they do, you'll be able to do it yourself next time. [18:14:35] I kindof expected the next line to be "Or else they're going to install Vista into your system" [18:14:46] Also, thanks :)