On 01/09/06, Platonides Platonides@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