On 11/24/05, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske(a)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?