Michael Turley wrote:
On 10/3/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Michael Turley wrote:
I previously didn't like the idea of public article rating schemes, but I was wrong to express my opposition before waiting to see what would develop. This could be a very good use indeed.
Do you think that articles which fall below a certain threshhold (eg.
- -100) should be deleted, or just hidden? Or should the current article
rating be displayed in big red numbers at the top of the article?
Deletion should never be an automatic process. I've seen far too many articles "saved" while on AfD to support that.
That impatient drive for automation and decisions that require minimal thoughtful effort is a big part of the social problem around deletion. Before I trust an editor I look to see the work that he is doing. Deletions and proposed deletions are a subset of one's edits. If that subset takes up too big a proportion of his edits I become suspicious. So I look at his deletion practices to see how he exercises judgement. I've lurked at numerous VFD/AFD entries and done nothing, mostly because the subject matter was only marginal to my interests. But my observations would certainly note the reccurrence of certain editors' names, and my trust would be affected accordingly.
The problem with automated process is that they do not require the intervention of a brain. It is conceivable that some deletions could be done automatically, but we are nowhere near having criteria to which we could all agree. I don't mind at all if the process is a little slow.
I like the big red number, but I would be satisfied if only the lower numbers were red. Articles rated in the top and bottom 20% will always get attention, either because they are so bad or because the rating is too good to be true. Rating the first entry in an article at a mandatory 10 will have the effect of drawing eyes to that article.
Further, it is the existence of "poor quality" or nonexistent articles that gets us new editors. If all of the articles we allow the public to view are near perfect, few will join.
There's ironic truth to that. Few people edit Britannica because it's so perfect. :-) A very poorly rated article will also get attention, preferably from people who understand what it means to improve something rather than those who want to prevent improvement.
Ec