Anthere (anthere9(a)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