wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
With the right hand, you rate the raters. So each of us gets a clue stick and goes around whacking good editors "good rater" rate up a notch by voting for them as raters.
With the left hand, you rate the articles, and when other editors agree with you, they whack you and your "good rater" score goes up.
Now with the giant nose of Zenobia, you multiply the article rating by the raters rating, and average.
Thusly and so, articles get a good rating based on the best raters rating them good, and nasty bad evil raters, ratings fall into the first circle (i.e. they are weighted as nothing).
By rating the raters your are finding a different way of introducing the same kind of subjectivity that we want to avoid. Our most persistent battles over the years at Wikipedia have been those that involve a key subjective factor such as notability. If we had such a concept as "good raters" it's easy to see that the race to be "good" would yield the same nonsense as we see at Requests for Adminship.
Ec