更改

The error is two-fold. Firstly, a ranking only orders vertices by importance, it does not quantify the difference in importance between different levels of the ranking. This may be mitigated by applying Freeman centralization to the centrality measure in question, which provide some insight to the importance of nodes depending on the differences of their centralization scores. Furthermore, Freeman centralization enables one to compare several networks by comparing their highest centralization scores. This approach, however, is seldom seen in practice.

The error is two-fold. Firstly, a ranking only orders vertices by importance, it does not quantify the difference in importance between different levels of the ranking. This may be mitigated by applying Freeman centralization to the centrality measure in question, which provide some insight to the importance of nodes depending on the differences of their centralization scores. Furthermore, Freeman centralization enables one to compare several networks by comparing their highest centralization scores. This approach, however, is seldom seen in practice.

错误有两方面。首先，一个排名只根据顶点的重要性排序，它并不对节点重要性的不同水平进行量化区分。这可以通过将 '''<font color="#ff8000"> 弗里曼集中度Freeman centralization</font>'''应用到中心性度量来缓解，这可以根据节点的中心性得分差异对节点的重要性提供一些见解。此外，弗里曼集中度使人们能够通过比较几个网络的最高中心性得分来比较它们。<ref name="Freeman1979"/>然而，这种方法在实践中很少见到。{{citation needed|reason=I've come across quite some theoretical studies that indicate otherwise. My suggestion is to remove this sentence, if reasonable citation is not provided.|date=September 2015}}

错误有两方面。首先，一个排名只根据顶点的重要性排序，它并不对节点重要性的不同水平进行量化区分。这可以通过将 '''<font color="#ff8000"> 弗里曼中心度Freeman centralization</font>'''应用到中心性度量来缓解，这可以根据节点的中心度得分差异对节点的重要性提供一些见解。此外，弗里曼集中度使人们能够通过比较几个网络的最高中心度得分来比较它们。<ref name="Freeman1979"/>然而，这种方法在实践中很少见到。{{citation needed|reason=I've come across quite some theoretical studies that indicate otherwise. My suggestion is to remove this sentence, if reasonable citation is not provided.|date=September 2015}}