On 5/22/05, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
Mmmm. Possibly the results should not even be viewable
for 1.5.
So are we to create yet another class of privileged user now? Those
with access to the verification system output?
What a horrible idea. Our community is founded on openness and
cooperation and we can't achieve that if only a priesthood has access
to some information. We should only form special classes of users
when there is a compelling need in terms of keeping the site
operational (thus only allowing some users to delete or block, and not
including cleartext passwords in our DB dump output).
Yes. However, articles with low ratings will be an
obvious place to go for
people to fix things up.
I think it'd be horrible if "low ratings" suddenly became a VFD reason.
Eh, 'low raitings' would never be a direct reason to VFD. It would be
a reason to rewrite the article, almost any reason suggests we rewrite
the article is a reason suggesting we keep the article.
However, the rating system could be (ab)used to help automate the
voting collection process for places where we already vote (FAC, VFD)
by providing a uniform way to collect votes and perform tallies.