Ray Saintonge wrote:
My first impression from your response is that you would end up with something even more complicated than what I would imagine. :- ( While I see the value of having this ones preferences set to have a certain version as preferred, the drive-by viewer just looking for information is not likely to know about this. He can, however, be guided by whether an article has (in big numbers) a reliability rating of 2.6 or 7.9.
I think user rating of article versions ought to be as simple as possible: one-click approval. It ought to be as easy as clicking on the "watch this article" tab to add an article to your watchlist. This means that all users do is decide yes or no for approval. Anything further adds complexity to the system but offers little gain in utility.
I don't think it's a good idea to try to have each user attach a numerical rating to their approval level or to break out approval into different categories. Both of those would just complicate the system. For example, if we have a numerical rating, what numerical range should we use for the scale? 1 through 3? 1 through 5? 1 through 10? If it's 1 through 10, does 1 mean "exceptional" and 10 mean "horrible" or is it vice versa? These are trivial questions, but they have to be answered, and the interface has to convey the answers to these questions so plainly that even new users don't get confused. With Wikipedia, moreover, users have the ability to edit articles themselves to come up with a version that they are willing to approve, so there's less need to rate versions according to DEGREE of approval. If someone sees an article that they would rate 7 on a scale of 1 to 10, they can just edit it themselves into a condition where they think it rates 10 and then approve that version. And if someone subsequently edits it into an even BETTER condition, they can just click to approve the new version, superseding their previous choice.
I think it would be an even bigger mistake to try to set up a system that scores article versions according to multiple criteria such as "accuracy," "neutrality," "comprehensiveness," etc. Not only would this complicate the rating system and the user interface, it would inevitably be arbitrary in its choice of rating criteria, because there are any number of criteria that could be used, and the system would have to arbitrarily choose a subset: OK, we'll rate according to "accuracy" and "neutrality" but not according to "clarity" or "fairness" or "grammar" or "well-referenced" or "suitable for children" or "appropriate use of graphics."
-------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception | Banana Republicans | The Best War Ever -------------------------------- | Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting: | http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html | | Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: | https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?id=1118 --------------------------------