On 5/22/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
No, no, only for 1.5 - so that the data gathering can proceed without any visible output as a running score. I anticipate the results of the data-gathering test to be available in a downloadable form for people to pick over in close detail.
Eh, it sets a bad precedent. Users will claim we stole their anonymity when we turn off the feature. Besides what will it hurt? sure it might get used in fodder for silly arguments but so does everything else.
To make the test the most valid we should try to make it approximate the real usage as close as possible. For example, it's likely that people will vote more often when they disagree with the existing votes. But that wont happen if the existing votes are private.
I think it'd be horrible if "low ratings" suddenly became a VFD reason.
Eh, 'low raitings' would never be a direct reason to VFD.
I'm sure someone said that about "notability", which isn't in the deletion policy either.
I'd encourage you to cite that one. :)
You watch. I bet someone will try just that and someone else will think it's a dandy idea for culling Wikipedia.
Sure, but people will also argue that when we give a solog authored article bad votes we are also making a POV statement driven by our bias against him. :-)
People will claim many things. We are going into 1.5 with an explicit statement that it's a test and shouldn't be used for anything.
However, the rating system could be (ab)used to help automate the voting collection process for places where we already vote (FAC, VFD) by providing a uniform way to collect votes and perform tallies.
It provides some framework for article metadata, yes. Or at least for ideas on metadata.
Well version metadata. We already have article metadata of a sort, think catagory tags and the like. :)