Maintaining high quality content is one of the foremost objectives of any web-based collaborative service that depends on a large number of users. In such systems, it is nearly impossible for automated scripts to judge semantics as it is to expect all editors to review the content. This catalyzes the need for trust-based mechanisms to ensure quality of an article immediately after an edit. In this paper, we build on previous work and develop a framework based on the ‘web of trust’ concept to calculate satisfaction scores for all users without the need for perusing the article. We derive some bounds for systems based on our mechanism and show that the optimization problem of selecting the best users to review an article is NP-Hard. Extensive simulations validate our model and results, and show that trust-based mechanisms are essential to improve eciency in any online collaborative editing platform.
With respect to quality of collaborative content, the recently proposed WikiTrust @cite_3 uses author reputation and number of edits to measure the trustworthiness of each word in a wiki article, and detect vandalism. Automated evaluations based on global reputation and article semantics are however beyond the scope of this paper and we stick to using reviews from a small subset of the user base to calculate satisfaction scores for the rest. As far as we are aware, this is the first study applying the web of trust model for collaborative work.
@cite_3
2129553551 2098930119 2125545976 1988560072
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. Using open source Web editing software (e.g., wiki), online community users can now easily edit, review and publish articles collaboratively. While much useful knowledge can be derived from these articles, content users and critics are often concerned about their qualities. In this paper, we develop two models, namely basic model and peer review model, for measuring the qualities of these articles and the authorities of their contributors. We represent collaboratively edited articles and their contributors in a bipartite graph. While the basic model measures an article?s quality using both the authorities of contributors and the amount of contribution from each contributor, the peer review model extends the former by considering the review aspect of article content. We present results of experiments conducted on some Wikipedia pages and their contributors. Our result show that the two models can effectively determine the articles? qualities and contributors? authorities using the collaborative nature of online communities. There are two perspectives on the role of reputation in collaborative online projects such as Wikipedia or Yahoo! Answers. One, user reputation should be minimized in order to increase the number of contributions from a wide user base. Two, user reputation should be used as a heuristic to identify and promote high quality contributions. The current study examined how offline and online reputations of contributors affect perceived quality in MathOverflow, an online community with 3470 active users. On MathOverflow, users post high-level mathematics questions and answers. Community members also rate the quality of the questions and answers. This study is unique in being able to measure offline reputation of users. Both offline and online reputations were consistently and independently related to the perceived quality of authors' submissions, and there was only a moderate correlation between established offline and newly developed online reputation. A large fraction of user-generated content on the Web, such as posts or comments on popular online forums, consists of abuse or spam. Due to the volume of contributions on popular sites, a few trusted moderators cannot identify all such abusive content, so viewer ratings of contributions must be used for moderation. But not all viewers who rate content are trustworthy and accurate. What is a principled approach to assigning trust and aggregating user ratings, in order to accurately identify abusive content? In this paper, we introduce a framework to address the problem of moderating online content using crowdsourced ratings. Our framework encompasses users who are untrustworthy or inaccurate to an unknown extent --- that is, both the content and the raters are of unknown quality. With no knowledge whatsoever about the raters, it is impossible to do better than a random estimate. We present efficient algorithms to accurately detect abuse that only require knowledge about the identity of a single 'good' agent, who rates contributions accurately more than half the time. We prove that our algorithm can infer the quality of contributions with error that rapidly converges to zero as the number of observations increases; we also numerically demonstrate that the algorithm has very high accuracy for much fewer observations. Finally, we analyze the robustness of our algorithms to manipulation by adversarial or strategic raters, an important issue in moderating online content, and quantify how the performance of the algorithm degrades with the number of manipulating agents.