On 01/09/06, Platonides <Platonides(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Much easier. But probably you'll get the most
feedback from anons.
At least how i understood it. If you have a number of wikipedists
'reviewing articles' may be used.
[snipped stuff I don't necessarily disagree with]
I think the point is that we're not talking about votes to elect a new
Prime Minister or President, and we're not talking about something
that's oh-so-vital that a few dud votes will kill us off.
It's a casual rating system to give people a bit of an idea as to how
good various people think a page is. Supplemental to stable
versioning, perhaps, but it still doesn't replace people checking
their own sources, etc.
Your point about feedback coming from anons is a good one, and quite
salient, since it's quite correct that most (and the best, from the
point of view of what our "audience" thinks) feedback will come from
viewers who might not have accounts.
Whatever is chosen in the implementation is going to be a toss-up,
because life is not perfect, people are not perfect, and shared IP
addressing is a sordid reality we have to put up with. :)
Rob Church