AI service gives Wikipedians ‘X-ray specs’ to see through bad edits

Post by iraphael » Thu, Dec 03, 2015, 3:47 PM UTC

HarryHirsch wrote: post #39

tptacek wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Good" simply means "unlikely to be reverted". The objective is to save time for editors.

Maybe the better metric is usefulness to the reader. A suitable algorithm can recognize things like "N.N. smells", but so can any user. The current algorithms are very effective at dealing with "XY is gay" and "Buy herbal viagra"; you don't see much of that. The really insidious stuff is spin doctors for companies and nations. So far, Wikipedia does a very poor job with geopolitical conflicts, and competing financial…

But the people who are supposed to define what's good for the reader are the editors. They show the system what they think is good by either reverting edits or not, so by saying "this edit is likely to be reverted", the AI is saying "based on input from all editors, this edit may not be good for the users".

Effectively, those are the same thing, unless you want to create a hard definition of "good for the users". But that's going around the editors, and taking their opinion of "good" out of the equation, which IMO is a very bad idea.

Post by exo762 » Tue, Dec 08, 2015, 6:20 PM UTC

benten10 wrote: post #42

exo762 wrote: post #4

This is very peculiar. New tool is introduced, which joins a set of existing tools (bots) which address the same problem. Some comparison of quality and robustness is expected. Instead author gives us some insight into his/hers source of inspiration: > A feminist inspiration > “Please exercise extreme caution to avoid encoding racism or other biases into an AI scheme.” > Wnt (from The Signpost) And few lines below we…

Alright buddy, I don't want to get in a flame war here, but I'll summarize my arguments in short. A hits B. Hard. When B tries fighting back, A suggests the world should be a fair place, and really, he doesn't support violence at all, and there should be global peace. C turns D's family into indentured servants. When D becomes a part of a revolution, and tries to make sure no one from C's (or D's) side can do it agai…

Your argument is in fact two arguments. First one is: "women are discriminated against". Second one is: "women are fighting back, men brought it onto themselves".

So lets go through part one, "women are oppressed", point by point.

> A hits B. Hard. ...

Violence. 70% of non-reciprocal domestic violence is committed by women against men. Article [0]. Men are primary target of every police intervention, even if it was man who reported violence committed against him by his woman partner. Lookup Duluth model. And battered men has nowhere to go - there are no shelters for male victims of DV.

> C turns D's family into indentured servants...

Slavery? What?

> ... members of G groups, which are in power in their country. ...

"Men in power". Yeah, those who are in power are mostly men. But what good comes from it for men who are not in power? Majority of homeless are men; majority of prisoners are men; majority of unemployed are men; majority of victims of DV are men. Men get longer sentences for same crimes, women get suspended sentences for things men serve time.

As for clear legal discrimination, there are multiple examples of it. Fathers' rights are a joke, draft is still for males only, selective service is for males only; men can't opt-out from parenthood, while options are available for women. As for legal discrimination of women - there is one clear-cut example and it is access to abortion.

As for your second argument. "Men had it coming, now repent for your sins". This argument is dumb beyond recognition. Even Joseph Stalin said that "The son is not responsible for the father's deeds". You seems to be not agreeing with him on only thing everyone agrees with him. And you basically place blame ON HALF OF HUMANITY, collectively. Good job!

[0] http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id...

If you want more sources, go here: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/wiki/faq. FAQs don't bite, and I've spent enough time typing out this answer.

EDIT: word of warning, /r/MensRights is a bad place, too much vitriol. Go to /r/FeMRADebates instead.

Re: AI service gives Wikipedians ‘X-ray specs’ to see through bad edits

Re: AI service gives Wikipedians ‘X-ray specs’ to see through bad edits