[WikiEN-l] How is validation supposed to work?

[Magnus Manske]

geni wrote:

>On 11/24/05, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:
>  
>
>>Yeah, just putting new toys online to see what happens is really a
>>stupid idea.
>>
>>Thankfully, we never tried such nonsense at Nupedia. Who knows what we
>>would have ended up with, instead of the twenty-plus high-quality
>>articles we now have after years of hard labor.
>>
>>Magnus
>>    
>>
>
>
>Well I supose we could have a go at guessing in advance:
>
>Validation wars with forums ganging up to vote for/against certian
>articles. evidence (no way should it be rated that high:
>
>http://newgrounds.com/portal/view/276616
>
>Trolls will follow around users they don't like rateing their articles to zero.
>
>An equiverlent of schoolwatch will turn up and start rateing all of a
>certian type of article to exelent
>
>The anglo-american spelling war will use article validation as a new
>battle field.
>
>We will disscover that our articles on pokemon and explodeing wales
>are our most valued.
>
>at least one arbcom case will result from the switching on of this feature.
>
>So all in all bussiness as usal and nothing to worry about (well no
>more than there normaly is). People will use it to cause trouble but
>unless we lock the database people are always going to be able to
>cause trouble.
>
>  
>
All of the above *might* happen. Which is why we have a test phase. If
the voting trolls really turn out to be a problem, we could restrict
viewing of the individual votes to admins (to check for bot abuse and
the like). Or each user could chose to hide his/her votes individually.

In the test setup, everything goes. Even anons (or whatever they're
called now :-) can vote. This might or might not be a good idea in the
long run. But there's only one way to find out.

By trying.

Magnus

P.S.: What's so bad about knowing that people like our article about
exploding whales?