Re: [Bug-gnupedia] Ratings

[Rob Scott]

But the problem is you might get the scored leaking
between each other...  i dont think the second score
would work, mainly because of common opinion.

For instance, if someone wrote an entry saying that
edison invented the lightbulb, everyone would give him
a good score, because it is common opinion that he
did.   
However if someone wrote an article saying that Joseph
Swan invented it, he would get a bad score, no matter
how right he was.   This would be effectively putting
a voting slip at the bottom saying 'WHO THINKS I'M
RIGHT?'.
This is not a popularity contest.

However i do think that the first score would be a
good idea.


--- Peteris Paikens <address@hidden> wrote: >   I
beleive that with whatever rating system used,
> we need to separate two
> different ratings : 
> 1) 'article' rating - how well the article is
> written, how informative it
> is, etc;
> 2) 'subject' rating - how accurate, or truthful it
> seems.  For non-exact
> sciences it is hard to tell about truthfulness, as
> it was mentioned about
> topics like nazis, eveolution, and many others, but
> some are more plausible
> than others, and this rating should reflect is.
> 
> The point is to separate things such as sloppy
> article on, let's say, law of
> gravity, from a well written article that claims
> things that the reviewer
> does not agree to.
> 
> articles with bad 1st rating would wither be
> rewritten or tossed out, but
> articles with a bad 2nd rating would show
> alternative viewpoints and would
> be marked as such, and the reader would choose
> wether to view such articles
> or not.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gnupedia mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnupedia


____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie