>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no
longer maintained.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/