Le Monday 23 May 2005 13:24, Anthere a écrit :
Yann Forget a écrit:
Hi,
Le Sunday 22 May 2005 17:05, Magnus Manske a écrit :
David Gerard schrieb:
>I suggest that we allow ratings by anonymous users (IP numbers), at
least in
1.5.
>>
>>Reasons for this:
>>
>>* we've always worked by leaving things as open as possible and only
>> restricting as needed;
>>
>>* we're explicitly not using the data for anything important yet, so if
>>ten thousand rating spammers put [[Image:Autofellatio.jpg]] top
marks for
everything, it won't actually affect anything;
* the raw data will be of great interest to people, and as wide as
possible is good. (I can see the academics studying Wikipedia slavering
for the ratings data tarball ;-)
Two reasons against this:
* Later, we will allow only logged-in users to rate articles, right?
Otherwise, we'll lose a great part of the perceived reliability
improvement, IMHO. But how can we really set up this system if the data
we use as a foundation for the decision is based on anon entries as
well?
I think it better if only logged in users can validate articles.
But well it depend what we want to do with this feature: selecting
articles
for an offline publication or studying psychology and sociology of
Wikipedia readers ?
We have a precedent: only logged in users can upload images.
This is not the same.
Uploading images is a way to improve the quality of the project. We had
to put restrictions to limit vandalism.
For me this is the same. Validating articles is a way to improve the quality
of the project.
However, I think we need feedback from readers as
well. Possibly a way
to go around of vandalism would be to allow voting with a valid email
address on top ?
Which is stricter than creating an account and logging in, as we don't require
a valid email for that.
Ant
Yann
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre
http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux