On 9/7/05, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 07/09/05, charles matthews
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
Trying to think laterally for the moment. If
articles were rated on a scale
of 1 to 100 for excellence, the lower rungs of the ladder would correspond
to poor articles, of various types: stubby, badly written, failing when
judged by policy (NPOV, NOR, CYS), non-encyclopedic. This could be the
basis of an automated clean-up/deletion mechanism also, but would need
perhaps one other ingredient (to make a kind of 2-d plot). What should that
be?
Quality of form vs. quality of content?
The one is ranging from an unwikified orphan stub to a polished,
linked, well-referenced 5,000 word article article; the other deals
with comprehensiveness, NPOV, accuracy, &c.
I'm certainly not always the best or most dedicated contributor, but
whenever I make a significant edit, I try to cite sources and post
references. Even when I don't, I make use of the edit summaries to
explain my edits.
Since I regularly contribute to Wikipedia, I think it's clear that I
don't object to my contributions being re-edited mercilessly.
However, the more I consider these proposed article rating schemes,
the more I dislike the idea of my contributions being graded by those
who feel it is their right do so without any real feeling of
obligation to actually improve the article instead. If these ideas
develop in the direction I fear they will (based on my observation of
and participation in the various deletion forums), I am certain to
decrease or cease my participation.
In other words, I'm willing to put my writing on the table for anyone
to re-edit at will. I am far less willing to place it in a shooting
gallery for random drive-by snipes to take pot shots at.
I already feel hostility regarding good faith contributions from the
deletion forums. There is already significant negativity in the way
we treat some new users who do not yet understand how Wikipedia
functions. I fear that any article rating forum will almost certainly
bring with it further negativity that I'm not interested in.
The Wiki process and participation by many dedicated users assures
that the quality of our articles improves over time. I don't see a
rating system as essential to the drive toward quality content. In
fact, I think it will likely drive users away, decreasing the value of
the Wiki process.
Being re-edited, revised, or reverted is more than enough of a
"rating" of my work. I can already tell how much the community
respects my efforts by the rough proportion of what remains of my
contributions months later.
Whatever article rating scheme develops (and there is almost certain
to be one, based on the support I see here for one), please take care
to prevent it from being a negative experience, especially for new
users who frequently aren't ready for or accustomed to the high
standards we all strive to achieve.
--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused