[WikiEN-l] purpose served by anonymity / unmoderated edits

[Sheldon Rampton]

Ray Saintonge wrote:

> My first impression from your response is that you would end up with
> something even more complicated than what I would imagine. :- 
> (    While
> I see the value of having this ones preferences set to have a certain
> version as preferred, the drive-by viewer just looking for information
> is not likely to know about this.  He can, however, be guided by  
> whether
> an article has (in big numbers) a reliability rating of 2.6 or 7.9.

I think user rating of article versions ought to be as simple as  
possible: one-click approval. It ought to be as easy as clicking on  
the "watch this article" tab to add an article to your watchlist.  
This means that all users do is decide yes or no for approval.  
Anything further adds complexity to the system but offers little gain  
in utility.

I don't think it's a good idea to try to have each user attach a  
numerical rating to their approval level or to break out approval  
into different categories. Both of those would just complicate the  
system. For example, if we have a numerical rating, what numerical  
range should we use for the scale? 1 through 3? 1 through 5? 1  
through 10? If it's 1 through 10, does 1 mean "exceptional" and 10  
mean "horrible" or is it vice versa? These are trivial questions, but  
they have to be answered, and the interface has to convey the answers  
to these questions so plainly that even new users don't get confused.  
With Wikipedia, moreover, users have the ability to edit articles  
themselves to come up with a version that they are willing to  
approve, so there's less need to rate versions according to DEGREE of  
approval. If someone sees an article that they would rate 7 on a  
scale of 1 to 10, they can just edit it themselves into a condition  
where they think it rates 10 and then approve that version. And if  
someone subsequently edits it into an even BETTER condition, they can  
just click to approve the new version, superseding their previous  
choice.

I think it would be an even bigger mistake to try to set up a system  
that scores article versions according to multiple criteria such as  
"accuracy," "neutrality," "comprehensiveness," etc. Not only would  
this complicate the rating system and the user interface, it would  
inevitably be arbitrary in its choice of rating criteria, because  
there are any number of criteria that could be used, and the system  
would have to arbitrarily choose a subset: OK, we'll rate according  
to "accuracy" and "neutrality" but not according to "clarity" or  
"fairness" or "grammar" or "well-referenced" or "suitable for  
children" or "appropriate use of graphics."

--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
|     Weapons of Mass Deception
|     Banana Republicans
|     The Best War Ever
--------------------------------
|  Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting:
|  http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html
|
|  Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting:
|  https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?id=1118
--------------------------------