ORES review tool/pt

A extensão ORES é uma ferramenta que integra o serviço ORES e o MediaWiki. ORES é uma ferramenta baseada em inteligência artificial que classifica edições. See ORES' documentation for more information about what types of scoring are available.

The default threshold is deliberately set low to capture almost all vandalism cases (so a number of false positives are also likely to occur). This is in contrast to anti-vandalism bots which set the threshold high to capture only the most obvious vandalism cases (and thus have few false positives). If you do not want to see the flag for most edits, you can simply change ORES sensitivity (see below).

Utilizar a ORES
No seu menu de Recursos Beta, ative o ORES se estiver disponível. The review tool will augment Special:RecentChanges and Special:Watchlist by highlighting and flagging edits (with a red-colored  ) that need review, because the ORES prediction model judges them to be "damaging". E ainda que existe uma nova opção denominada "Ocultar boas edições". Ao clicar nessa opção, poderá verificar apenas as edições que são, provavelmente, vandalismos. Se analisou uma edição e concluiu que não era vandalismo, pode simplesmente marcá-la como patrulhada e não estará mais destacada.

Pode alterar a sensibilidade da ORES nas suas preferências (na aba Mudanças recentes) e tornar "Ocultar boas edições" na sua opção por definição nas mudanças recentes e/ou na sua lista de páginas vigiadas.



How does ORES detect damaging edits?
ORES uses machine learning strategies to "learn" what damaging edits look like, by reviewing examples created by Wikipedians through Wiki labels. These predictions are inherently imperfect because ORES cannot be as smart as an experienced human editor. However, ORES can help make the work of RecentChanges-patrolling easier by flagging edits that might be damaging. This is why the review interface states that flagged edits "may be damaging and should be reviewed". Ultimately, human editorial judgement is necessary for determining which edits are damaging and which edits are not.

See m:Objective Revision Evaluation Service for more information about how "edit quality" is evaluated in ORES.

Why use the term "damaging" instead of "vandalism"?
"Vandalism" is just a subset of what we want to catch when we're doing RC Patrolling. The word "vandalism" implies deliberate malicious intent. However, a patroller's job is to look for damaging edits whether the damage was actually intended or not. Therefore, referring to the edits that the review tool flags as "damaging" is more true to the kind of work the system is designed to support.

Note that the ORES service also provides a model that focuses on the good-faith/bad-faith distinction ("goodfaith"). It'll be easier to take advantage of that when we deploy the next major change to filtering on the RC page for the review tool. See the Including new filter interface in ORES review tool topic under discussion.