David Gerard wrote:
Tomer Chachamu (the.r3m0t(a)gmail.com) [050329 06:30]:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 03:30:25 +0800, b schewek
<schewek(a)linuxmail.org> wrote:
> Have there been any considerations to add
support
> for the following ideas:
>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reviewed_article_version
People have not yet agreed on
[[meta:Article_validation]] - even some
basic issues, such as whether to show to anons the reviewed or latest
version. I can't imagine support for this will be in 1.5.
That's a really bad thing, considering a pile of plans are hung waiting for
just that feature or something like it.
Yes, I think we need to have an understanding of what needs to be done
in this 1.5 version. We do *not* need to decide such issues as
whether to show anons the reviewed or latest version. All we need for
starters is... starters.
What I envision for 1.5 is the simplest possible data gathering tool.
People rate articles, and we record everything about that rating --
who did the rating, what was the rating, what version was rated, etc.
Then we do nothing at all with the data except study it. We can
anonymize it and share it, and people can run studies of various kinds
on how to combine the ratings effectively. We can look at the ratings
and see if they are sane, or where they are sane... do anons do a good
job of rating? do experienced editors tend to give the same ratings,
etc.
The beauty of just gathering data and studying it for awhile, with *no
actual implications for the site*, is that we don't have to "a priori"
figure out how to prevent the ratings system from becoming a
slashdot-style karma-whoring game. We just gather the data, and think
really really hard about it.
--Jimbo