Wikipedia:Reducing consensus to an algorithm: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
addpic |
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) ce |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 8:
where:
* A = argument strength/credibility
* N = number of relevant [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|sources]] supporting the argument
Line 22 ⟶ 21:
Key:
* A = argument strength/credibility
* S<sub>{{var|x}}</sub> = an individual [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|source]]'s relevance (how well it supports argument A)
Line 30 ⟶ 28:
In plain English: Each source is assigned a contextual value, a combination of relevance to supporting the argument and reliability (reputability) of the source. These values are added together, then divided by number of sources presented, to produce an average. This step accounts for an increasing number of sources in support of the argument actually making the argument stronger, by slightly reducing the amount by which the relevance-and-reliability total is divided (in this model, for every ten sources you get a 1/10 bonus to argument credibility).
This is just a {{lang|de|[[Gedankenexperiment]]}}, since we have no objective way to assign numeric S and R values. Still, this {{em|does
The more {{em|and}} better your sources are, the more your view will be accepted by consensus, all other things being equal. (Once in a while they are not equal, e.g. when a socio-political or other [[WP:FACTION|faction]] has seized control of an article for the nonce and simply rejects ideas they don't like regardless of the evidence, until a [[WP:Noticeboard|noticeboard]] steps in and undoes the [[WP:Ownership of content|would-be ownership]] of the page.)
Given a non-staggering sample size of sources, the model even accurately captures the negative effect on A (credibility) when trying to rely on any obviously terrible sources even if other sources are high-end. Every source that does not have an R value close to 1 will drag down the average (much like how a failing grade on one exam or paper out of 10 in a class will significantly lower your overall grade even if you got straight ''A''s on all the rest of them).
It's not quite a perfect model, since it doesn't account for the fact that citing 100+ really terrible sources for a [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories|nonsense position]] ("[[Bigfoot]] is real", etc.) just makes you look crazy; the factoring of the effect of the number of sources is too simplistic. A better algorithm would apply a subtle modifier such that the positive effect of multiple good sources or negative effect of multiple bad sources progressively compounded.
{{Wikipedia essays|humour}}
| |||