No abstract

The Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia: anyone can contribute to its articles simply by clicking on an "edit" button. The open nature of the Wikipedia has been key to its success, but has also created a challenge: how can readers develop an informed opinion on its reliability? We propose a system that computes quantitative values of trust for the text in Wikipedia articles; these trust values provide an indication of text reliability.The system uses as input the revision history of each article, as well as information about the reputation of the contributing authors, as provided by a reputation system. The trust of a word in an article is computed on the basis of the reputation of the original author of the word, as well as the reputation of all authors who edited text near the word. The algorithm computes word trust values that vary smoothly across the text; the trust values can be visualized using varying text-background colors. The algorithm ensures that all changes to an article's text are reflected in the trust values, preventing surreptitious content changes.We have implemented the proposed system, and we have used it to compute and display the trust of the text of thousands of articles of the English Wikipedia. To validate our trust-computation algorithms, we show that text labeled as low-trust has a significantly higher probability of being edited in the future than text labeled as high-trust.

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia which anyone can edit. While most edits are constructive, about 7% are acts of vandalism. Such behavior is characterized by modifications made in bad faith; introducing spam and other inappropriate content. In this work, we present the results of an effort to integrate three of the leading approaches to Wikipedia vandalism detection: a spatiotemporal analysis of metadata (STiki), a reputation-based system (Wiki-Trust), and natural language processing features. The performance of the resulting joint system improves the state-of-the-art from all previous methods and establishes a new baseline for Wikipedia vandalism detection. We examine in detail the contribution of the three approaches, both for the task of discovering fresh vandalism, and for the task of locating vandalism in the complete set of Wikipedia revisions. Authors appear alphabetically. Order does not reflect contribution magnitude.

No abstract

Algorithmic-based user incentives ensure the trustworthiness of evaluations of Wikipedia entries and Google Maps business information.

Abstract. We present the tool Ticc (Tool for Interface Compatibility and Composition). In Ticc, a component interface describes both the behavior of a component, and the component's assumptions on the environment's behavior. Ticc can check the compatibility of such interfaces, and analyze their emergent behavior, via a symbolic implementation of game-theoretic algorithms. OverviewOpen systems are systems whose behavior is jointly determined by their internal structure, and by the inputs that they receive from their environment. In previous work, it has been argued that games constitute a natural model for open systems [1,6,7,4,2]. We use games to represent the interaction between the behavior originating within a component, and the behavior originating from the component's environment. In particular, we model components as Input-Output games: the moves of Input represent the behavior the component can accept from the environment, while the moves of Output represent the behavior the component can generate.Unlike component models based on transition systems, models based on games provide a notion of compatibility [6,7,4]. When two components P and Q are composed, we can check whether the output behavior of P satisfies the input requirements of Q, and vice-versa. However, we do not define P and Q to be compatible only if their input requirements are always satisfied. Rather, we recognize that the output behavior of P and Q can still be influenced by their residual interaction with the environment (unless the composition of P and Q is closed). Thus, we define P and Q to be compatible if there is some environment under which their input assumptions are mutually satisfied, and we associate with their composition P Q the weakest (most general) assumptions about the environment that guarantee mutual compatibility. In game-theoretic terms, P

No abstract

No abstract