Something like the plan in [[User:David Gerard/1.0]] would use an
article
rating system (picture a "Rate this page" tab at the top next to
"Article",
"Edit", etc.) to get a rough idea of what is of decent quality to pull
for
a distribution.
I assume you're talking about rating per article, and not per revision
(as
the latter would be fairly impossible). In that case, it'd be quite a rough idea indeed.
Nope, per article version. See [[m:Article validation feature]]. (I think "validation" is a misnomer here myself - that was Magnus' name for it, since he wrote the feature.)
I don't get it. How many ratings do you think an average revision is going to get? 2 or 3? Probably much less than that, and that's without averaging in all the 0s.
I must not be understanding the feature.
If the Mozilla process does this, then presumably its programmers are
not
supposed to introduce brand new features during the alpha and beta
stages
of development. I find that rather hard to believe, but maybe Mozilla
is a
small enough project that it can do such a thing.
It's comparable to OpenOffice or KDE in compilation time. Depends if you call that "small".
Well, from what I've read about it, this isn't the way Mozilla development works anyway. In other words, the 1.0 branch is kept in maintenance mode while what will eventually become 2.0 is still worked on in the main trunk.
Of course, maybe our only disagreement here is over how long it's going
to
take to get from the point of the fork to the point where the branch is
no
longer maintained. In my opinion a few weeks isn't going to be anywhere near enough time to fix all the inaccuracies.
The presumption is that the sufficiently highly rated stuff will be of good quality anyway. If it isn't, it's material for an article improvement drive.
Well, I don't understand how the ratings will work. How will a popular article which is receiving regular edits ever get more than a few ratings for a single revision? ([[Helium]] was edited 4 times just in the past week. Are people expected to rate this every single time it is changed?)
And then, what do we do when the highest rated version of an article isn't the latest version? Let's say a version of [[Helen Gandy]] somehow manages to get 50 ratings. Then, maybe even just because of the attention of having so many ratings, it starts to get heavily edited. Which version goes into 1.0, the old version, or the new one? If it's the old one, what if we have to fix a few typos in that old one? We've essentially created a branch, and we've done so at some random point rather than an intentionally selected one. (And don't forget, this assumes a particular version manages to get a lot of ratings in the first place, which seems incredibly unlikely as I don't foresee people going through the history rating version after version, people are just going to rate the most recent version).
- d.
Anthony
_________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Anthony DiPierro (anthonydipierro@hotmail.com) [050808 10:07]:
Most of this is already answered on the Meta pages:
[[m:Article validation feature]] [[m:Article validation possible problems]]
I won't cut'n'paste from there, but refer you there.
In the first instance: we will just be gathering data. An essential point is that we won't even attempt to do anything with the data until we have some idea what shape it is. (This keeps separate the applications and the data itself.)
- d.