| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiTrust article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Trustworthy
editSeveral news articles mention trustworthiness, but it's never clearly defined. The software is described as measuring trustworthiness, but the ACRL blog says that it doesn't. And then adds that "all that orange is confusing." The blog posting has a clear bias (for example, "the oh-so-old-fashioned-critical-thinking-by-a-human approach"), but doesn't make a concrete case for this particular criticism. I think that there is definitely an important discussion revolving around how useful the software can be and what it is actually computing, but this particular citation feels vacuous to me. The research paper describing the software includes an evaluation that seems to partially address the question of what the software is doing, but are there other papers that provide other viewpoints or criticisms of the evaluation?
--67.180.67.25 (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- "Trust" has a specific definition here like "Page Rank", defined by the authors of the tool which is the subject of an article in this months CACM. I may look into this further, have installed it and only seems to be partially working, but should be all plain open source so should be able to bring it up independently, restore any stranded/unmaintained function. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 09:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Use
editI've pulled the package from github, apparently confirming that the client side is insufficient. Can check everything out in my draft space and update the article after that. Possible something needs adjustment in the English wiki if it's supposed to be installed there. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- So just works on physics articles such as Higgs Boson or Physics beyond the Standard Model but not on an arbitrary article, and Higgs apparently accessed a db at some UC campus. Will try to update the article to make clear how the tab can be used. For now it's clear that it works out the box but only for articles already spidered. Maybe a list of categories, topics, known to have been done. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)