I also think even an experiment can be dangerous,
because really,
there's no such thing as an experiment here. [
]
And the only way to stop the experiment would
be for Jimbo to make a very divisive decision to stop it.
Suggestions:
The experiment could run on meta. I expect less people will get emotionally
attached there, given the nature of its content.
Perhaps a more refined scheme might lessen the confusion about what a
person's rating is based on. People might want to compliment one another for
sheer number of contributions, reliability of content/factual knowledge,
courtesy/diplomatic efforts. An expert who writes only highly valued
articles in his/her particular field of knowledge might score low on
etiquette.
Doubts:
I'm not sure whether it will work (ref wikimoney) or whether it is a good
idea anyway. It might lead to a meritocracy where people with a high rating
throw their high wikistatus into an argument, or may even unintentionally
intimidate others with a different opinion, where now the merit of each edit
is judged on its own.
To avoid confusion and lessen the meritocratic side effects, the experiment
might be confined to the latter criterium: personal behaviour/wiki
etiquette. This is probably what Jimbo was thinking of in the first place,
since he gave potential usability for (de)sysoping as a possible benefit.
Then again, when a debate gets heated people will have stronger opinions
about each other. Will it be helpful when people resort to the statistical
equivalent of name calling? Will people with a negative account become
stigmatized, meaning their future actions will be prejudged based upon their
etiquette rating?
Erik Zachte