Colour coding on Wikipedia

A novel idea has been suggested by Prime Digit to colour (New Zealand spelling) code Wikipedia, showing what should be, theoretically, incorrect or unproven.

If the text is highlighted red, a probablility the information present is incorrect. The higher amount of red highlighted, the more probability that it is incorrect.

Using probability of accuracy (PoA), the text that has been edited the least, or not at all, will have more accuracy than text that is edited, say, constantly. “If a user edits something else on the page, every block that is not edited is considered of higher PoA. Registered users are even more likely to edit errors they find, and even more so with administrators.”

While I think this is a good idea, I believe, if it were ever to be implemented, that it should be opt-in only. I also prefer the printable version to it than the colour coding, making it easier to read the text without interruption and still easy to understand.

Hat-tip to What’s New Media.


3 Responses to “Colour coding on Wikipedia”

  1. 1 GerardM June 18, 2007 at 7.41 pm

    What makes you say that something that is infrequently edited is probably wrong? Do you have proof that this is the case ?

    You suggest that this is the case, without proof your post should be red itself. And with your wish for it being in the printed version, there is no way in which something can be marked to be correct anyway.. Really not that great an idea.

  2. 2 Gabriel Pollard June 18, 2007 at 7.50 pm

    The probability of accuracy just says that there is a chance that it is wrong because it has been frequently edited.

    It would just help stem the amount of criticism Wikipedia gets for being open and not really knowing if something on Wikipedia is truthful. This is just a tool to help stop some of that show to new users that this information is likely to be incorrect, don’t trust it.

  3. 3 GerardM June 18, 2007 at 11.49 pm

    It is exactly for this reason that it might be a good idea to have it in an on-line version. Having it in a printed version is stupid because it only detracts from the information that we want to give.

    When you want to indicate potential errors, the only place that makes sense where it has an operational use.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

About me

I write at Wikinews, and Practical eCommerce. I thoroughly enjoy writing about news and current affairs. I also have a TV related blog at Throng.

Support free media, donate to Wikinews!

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand License.

The Ubuntu Counter Project - user number # 14890


My Flickr photographs


%d bloggers like this: