Hi Mathias Schindler a écrit: Why do you think it could be beneficial to store/know this ? Ant

Anthere (anthere9(a)yahoo.com) [050522 01:22]: 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.

David Gerard a écrit: 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

Anthere wrote: There is no way to seperate one from another. In the end, one could extract the data from the sql-dump (if provided) or extract it from the web pages and include. So we are actually talking about "How much frustration is obfuscation creating?" (apart from: how much work is it to implement [[Special:Validationcontribution/username]] ?) Right. Detecting a systemic bias might indicate issues within the context. Let's assume one validation topic would be "foo" and user a would always rate 4/4 where the average rating of that article by all the other users were significant lower, this might indicate that there was some need for clearification. Or it might indicate that this user has a different level of standard. This is nothing bad, it would just be nice to know. This is actually a feature which does not have to be implemented by Magnus in the Code itself. Just give an SQL dump every week and someone might take the data and play with it. You never know. I would be happy if just the raw data would be provided. user | revision | timestamp | topic_1_rating | topic_1_comment topic_2_rating | topic_2_comment Magnus: This data is stored in the database anyway, right? Mathias

Anthere wrote: My imagination is "display everything". I think that this is not going too far. Mathias

On 5/21/05, David 'DJ' Hedley &lt;spyders(a)btinternet.com&gt; wrote: Are you talking about the English Wikipedia? If so, this should be on wikien-l rather than wikipedia-l since non-English Wikipedias don't generally have the same deletion procedures as English does. "IfD" was actually renamed "Images and media for deletion" <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion> last November so already covers audio and video. This is a fairly low traffic page compared to the main VfD, so I don't see an imminent need to split it at this stage. Angela.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Bryan Derksen schrieb: OK, the current code in CVS can show a list of the ratings of a user. All articles, all revisions, all topics, including comments. Users are, again, only refered to by ID than by name. In the current state, it will only show these data for the user who asks :-) Changing that so that everyone can see everyone's elses ratings would be a matter of changing two lines in the source... Magnus

Mathias Schindler a écrit: True, true... An example of "display everything" which I would love to see is * where do editors landing on this page most frequently come from... An extension of it which I might not agree with is * See the pattern of navigation of an editor...(not his edits, the pages he goes to visit). That might go a little too far... though I am quite certain those liking to manipulate things and spirits would love this ;-) My best Mathias Ant

Magnus Manske wrote: I find that very unusual from the perspective of how we do things, a step backwards from the open model. -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Brion Vibber schrieb: Maybe I didn't make myself clear (happens:-) I am "hiding" the user names just as a precaution, in case people don't want their ratings to be public. Personally, showing the user names is just fine with me. I just wasn't sure that's true for everyone else, so I took the cautious way. If there's consensus to show user names, so be it! Magnus

Magnus Manske wrote: But their ratings are *supposed* to be public. That's the whole point of the exercise! -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

"Bryan Derksen" &lt;bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca&gt; wrote in message news:428F7E94.1070309@shaw.ca... [snip] This would be sensible, since a validation vote will be just as much a contribution to the content of Wikipedia (or whatever) as a normal edit. I don't see why it should be any more easy for someone to "vandalise" articles by voting against them than by blanking or inserting rubbish. -- Phil [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]