[WikiEN-l] RE: What's wrong with the world?

[Anthony DiPierro]

> > >Something like the plan in [[User:David Gerard/1.0]] would use an 
>article
> > >rating system (picture a "Rate this page" tab at the top next to 
>"Article",
> > >"Edit", etc.) to get a rough idea of what is of decent quality to pull 
>for
> > >a distribution.
>
> > I assume you're talking about rating per article, and not per revision 
>(as
> > the latter would be fairly impossible).  In that case, it'd be quite a
> > rough idea indeed.
>
>
>Nope, per article version. See [[m:Article validation feature]]. (I think
>"validation" is a misnomer here myself - that was Magnus' name for it,
>since he wrote the feature.)
>
I don't get it.  How many ratings do you think an average revision is going 
to get?  2 or 3?  Probably much less than that, and that's without averaging 
in all the 0s.

I must not be understanding the feature.

> > If the Mozilla process does this, then presumably its programmers are 
>not
> > supposed to introduce brand new features during the alpha and beta 
>stages
> > of development.  I find that rather hard to believe, but maybe Mozilla 
>is a
> > small enough project that it can do such a thing.
>
>
>It's comparable to OpenOffice or KDE in compilation time. Depends if you
>call that "small".
>
Well, from what I've read about it, this isn't the way Mozilla development 
works anyway.  In other words, the 1.0 branch is kept in maintenance mode 
while what will eventually become 2.0 is still worked on in the main trunk.

> > Of course, maybe our only disagreement here is over how long it's going 
>to
> > take to get from the point of the fork to the point where the branch is 
>no
> > longer maintained.  In my opinion a few weeks isn't going to be anywhere
> > near enough time to fix all the inaccuracies.
>
>The presumption is that the sufficiently highly rated stuff will be of good
>quality anyway. If it isn't, it's material for an article improvement
>drive.
>
Well, I don't understand how the ratings will work.  How will a popular 
article which is receiving regular edits ever get more than a few ratings 
for a single revision?  ([[Helium]] was edited 4 times just in the past 
week.  Are people expected to rate this every single time it is changed?)

And then, what do we do when the highest rated version of an article isn't 
the latest version?  Let's say a version of [[Helen Gandy]] somehow manages 
to get 50 ratings.  Then, maybe even just because of the attention of having 
so many ratings, it starts to get heavily edited.  Which version goes into 
1.0, the old version, or the new one?  If it's the old one, what if we have 
to fix a few typos in that old one?  We've essentially created a branch, and 
we've done so at some random point rather than an intentionally selected 
one.  (And don't forget, this assumes a particular version manages to get a 
lot of ratings in the first place, which seems incredibly unlikely as I 
don't foresee people going through the history rating version after version, 
people are just going to rate the most recent version).

>
>- d.

Anthony

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/