On 9/7/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/09/05, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Trying to think laterally for the moment. If articles were rated on a scale of 1 to 100 for excellence, the lower rungs of the ladder would correspond to poor articles, of various types: stubby, badly written, failing when judged by policy (NPOV, NOR, CYS), non-encyclopedic. This could be the basis of an automated clean-up/deletion mechanism also, but would need perhaps one other ingredient (to make a kind of 2-d plot). What should that be?
Quality of form vs. quality of content?
The one is ranging from an unwikified orphan stub to a polished, linked, well-referenced 5,000 word article article; the other deals with comprehensiveness, NPOV, accuracy, &c.
I'm certainly not always the best or most dedicated contributor, but whenever I make a significant edit, I try to cite sources and post references. Even when I don't, I make use of the edit summaries to explain my edits.
Since I regularly contribute to Wikipedia, I think it's clear that I don't object to my contributions being re-edited mercilessly.
However, the more I consider these proposed article rating schemes, the more I dislike the idea of my contributions being graded by those who feel it is their right do so without any real feeling of obligation to actually improve the article instead. If these ideas develop in the direction I fear they will (based on my observation of and participation in the various deletion forums), I am certain to decrease or cease my participation.
In other words, I'm willing to put my writing on the table for anyone to re-edit at will. I am far less willing to place it in a shooting gallery for random drive-by snipes to take pot shots at.
I already feel hostility regarding good faith contributions from the deletion forums. There is already significant negativity in the way we treat some new users who do not yet understand how Wikipedia functions. I fear that any article rating forum will almost certainly bring with it further negativity that I'm not interested in.
The Wiki process and participation by many dedicated users assures that the quality of our articles improves over time. I don't see a rating system as essential to the drive toward quality content. In fact, I think it will likely drive users away, decreasing the value of the Wiki process.
Being re-edited, revised, or reverted is more than enough of a "rating" of my work. I can already tell how much the community respects my efforts by the rough proportion of what remains of my contributions months later.
Whatever article rating scheme develops (and there is almost certain to be one, based on the support I see here for one), please take care to prevent it from being a negative experience, especially for new users who frequently aren't ready for or accustomed to the high standards we all strive to achieve.