David Gerard wrote:
Tomer Chachamu (the.r3m0t@gmail.com) [050329 06:30]:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 03:30:25 +0800, b schewek schewek@linuxmail.org wrote:
Have there been any considerations to add support for the following ideas: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reviewed_article_version
People have not yet agreed on [[meta:Article_validation]] - even some basic issues, such as whether to show to anons the reviewed or latest version. I can't imagine support for this will be in 1.5.
That's a really bad thing, considering a pile of plans are hung waiting for just that feature or something like it.
Yes, I think we need to have an understanding of what needs to be done in this 1.5 version. We do *not* need to decide such issues as whether to show anons the reviewed or latest version. All we need for starters is... starters.
What I envision for 1.5 is the simplest possible data gathering tool.
People rate articles, and we record everything about that rating -- who did the rating, what was the rating, what version was rated, etc. Then we do nothing at all with the data except study it. We can anonymize it and share it, and people can run studies of various kinds on how to combine the ratings effectively. We can look at the ratings and see if they are sane, or where they are sane... do anons do a good job of rating? do experienced editors tend to give the same ratings, etc.
The beauty of just gathering data and studying it for awhile, with *no actual implications for the site*, is that we don't have to "a priori" figure out how to prevent the ratings system from becoming a slashdot-style karma-whoring game. We just gather the data, and think really really hard about it.
--Jimbo