-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales schrieb:
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.
Done. :-)
(In case you didn't notice, I re-implemented the validation feature in
1.5, and Brion wants to run a demo on his own server soon.)
Magnus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCSQZQCZKBJbEFcz0RApreAJ9v73AMLshN2/YtoXQOZXMih4i3EQCffxLy
Z6nM0X/4qr2lTziFNyYhoz0=
=0ajm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----