David Gerard a écrit:
Anthere (anthere9@yahoo.com) [050522 01:22]:
Mathias Schindler a écrit:
Magnus Manske wrote:
Would a page of all ratings from a specific *user* be of general interest? I think someone suggested it, but...
At least I suggested it on wikide-l. And I am still suggesting it :)
Why do you think it could be beneficial to store/know this ?
It's editorial work on the project like any other. How good you are with ratings is as much part of your reputation as how good you are with edits. I don't see any reason *not* to make it as public as any other editorial work.
- d.
I totally see the benefit of seeing who has voted what on a specific article.
I am more dubious of a sort of reporting set to define how an editor is generally voting.
There are several things which could be reported about an editor
* if we report all the articles on which an editor has been voting : this allow you to follow how active and beneficial he is to the community as a "rater" (:-)); it is mostly a measurement of activity and quite the equivalent of the contribution list.
* if we give his average voting rate : What is the benefit of it ? What information does that bring to you ? Would you consider an editor is good in his ratings because he gives good notes ? Or would he be good because he gives bad notes ? He might be one who tries to focus on good articles to increase their visibility... or he might be one who tries to focus on bad articles to invite editors to improve them. The information about his average rate is not an indicator of how good he is in rating articles
* more tricky, if we give his average voting rate, and compare it to average community rate, per article... ie, the discrepancy between what people vote on average and how he perceives the quality of articles... does that mean that he is not good in doing the job... or does that mean he does not fit in the medium point of view shared by the community ? Would he be considered bad then ? (a bit like editors complaining some articles are not npov while most editors think it is ? does that mean the first is a bad editors while the others are good ones ?)
What happen if a policy develops which allow only those who make good average vote within community frame of vote...to vote ?
What I mean is that it goes further than editorial work....
Our list of contribution is not allowing any judgement on the quality of the work we provide. It is a good way to access our work mostly. And a measurement of our activity. There is no judgement.
Following the "grades" we give could lead to judgement by comparison of what is done by the rest of the community. This is much more inquisitive.
Hence my interest in asking what will be exactly displayed.
Ant