ORES review tool/zh

这个ORES检查工具是面向用户的关键功能的ORES扩展. 它提供了“客观的修订评估服务”来自动评估修订版本的特征：它是破坏性的可能性，它可能有损害的程度，真诚的可能性，可能性将被恢复和整体质量. 审查界面综合了生成的得分ORES服务进入MediaWiki的接口. ORES提供自动评估修订，以帮助编辑. 例如，ORES可以预测编辑是否是破坏行为，以及文章的整体质量水平. 有关可用的评分类型的更多信息，请参阅ORES的文档.

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).

使用ORES
If the ORES extension is activated, you can enable the review tool within your user account by looking under the "beta features" section of Special:Preferences. 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". You will also be able to filter these lists by selecting the "Hide good edits" option. When you select this option, the review tool will hide any edits that ORES judges to be unlikely to be damaging. If you review an edit and realize it is not vandalism, you can simply mark it as "patrolled", and the highlighting and flag will be removed.

You can change the sensitivity of ORES in your preferences (under the "Recent changes" tab) to "High (flags more edits)" or "Low (flags fewer edits)". You can also choose to make "Hide good edits" selected by default.



ORES如何检测破坏性编辑？
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.

为何使用“有害”而不是“破坏”一词？
"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.