Paper on how "trusted" a wikipedia entry is?

I remember reading about paper where the auther goes through the edit history in an attempt to discover what has change and what has not. He even color coded the entries based on how much they changed vs stayed the same.

He also had a nice walk through of how his system does this & a test wiki of about 100 pages to show how it would work in real action.

I remember reading about paper where the auther goes through the edit history in an attempt to discover what has change and what has not. He even color coded the entries based on how much they changed vs stayed the same, the edits lasting longer being ones that were more trusted.

He also had a nice walk through of how his system does this & a test wiki of about 100 pages to show how it would work in real action.

I think the person used this as a thesis to earn his PhD.

"Wikipedia trust coloring" research done by the UCSC Wiki Lab sounds very similar to what you are talking about.

when I search online, I always make sure that I would choose wiki's info...they got some good info that other websites don't offer...I believe that wikipedia's entries are being maintained and observed...but always have a good reference instead of this since many people edit certain entries

You should look at wikipedia like you look at My Yahoo answers . Most people have opinions ( answers ) , and some are like rear ends, the stink !

Did you read it on the web, or no? Maybe it's this?

http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=98...