On 3/11/07, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On 3/11/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
It's only worth sharing if people think my
opinion is worth something
(i.e. if I rate highly enough on various "webs of trust" myself), so
you'd end up with endless intersecting webs, each one trying to
provide support for some other. This *is* the way it works in people's
minds, to be sure, but trying to formalize it would be hopeless. And
what happens when someone suddenly surprises me or let's me down? Do I
have to remove him from some list? Inform others who've copied my list
that X has fallen from favor?
You don't have to do anything. How well you maintain your network is
up to you. Other users will look at the dates when you wrote certain
statements, and take this into account. Your trust network is linked
to your person, so if you stop to maintain it completely, others will
simply judge it to be unreliable and stop using it.
Imagine that what you end up is something like [[Category:Positive
trust statements about SlimVirgin]], which contains pages such as
User:Eloquence/Positive trust/SlimVirgin/Biology
User:Dogmaster3000/Positive trust/SlimVirgin/Identity
A kind of "rate this user" thing, as on e-bay?
It's interesting. Just thinking off the top of my head -- would it
discourage people from getting involved in disputes, or from taking up
unpopular positions? If only 10 people have made positive statements
about me, and I can see that if I toe the party line on [[Islam]],
maybe another few people will say nice things about me, how likely am
I to insist that popular editor A cite his sources? In other words,
would being liked become more important than editing courageously? Or
rather (because it probably is more important at the moment), would
that priority become formalized?
Sarah