Re: [Bug-gnupedia] A system of moderation

[Rob Scott]

I dont thik there should be a 'voting' system which
relies on many people.   Any article should only have
to be accepted by one moderator, so that marginalised
views wont be pushed out by a lowest common
denominator voting system.   If you take a large
sample of people and ask them all to vote on
something, the result will usually favour the one that
appeals to most people.   This comes back to my
lightbulb situation.

Also people should not be able to have a negative
vote.  Otherwise the same will happen, you must just
be able to trust that no other moderator will vote for
it to get in.   ie- a strictly religious person may
see a submission on evolution, and vote it down.  
Now, if there were 60 moderators, 30 of them were very
religious (i know quite unrealistic), and there was
only 1 who thought it should go in, with the many
votes needed system, the submission would be rejected
almost immediately.


--- Imran Ghory <address@hidden> wrote: > Here
are my ideas for how a open encyclopedia could
> exist having 
> a reasonable level of articles without having to
> result to content 
> biased censorship.
> 
> How a moderation system could work:
> 
> 1) The user creates an article.
> 
> They can if they wish submit it to an editor who
> will try and improve 
> it grammatically/structurely to make it more
> readable.
> 
> 2) The user submits the article
> 
> They either have the choice of,
> 
> 2-1) GPG signing the article and submitting it
> directly to the project
> 2-2) Submit it to a proxy group and if the proxy
> group decides to 
> accept the article(on whatever criteria they desire)
> they can sign it 
> with their GPG key and submit the article to the
> project.
> 
> 
> 3) The project recieves the article and it goes to a
> reviewing board,
> 
> The reviewing board votes on two things,
> 
> 3-1) If they should accept or reject the article.
> They should be 
> allowed to reject the article if it's is,
> 
> 3-1a) Technically incorrect (e.g GPG signature
> broken)
> 3-1b) Clearly an attempt to abuse the system (e.g
> binary bomb or 
> the like)
> 3-1c) It is spam (i.e it is clearly commercial)
> 3-1d) Unreadable/nonesensical
> 3-1e) Breaks any international laws which the
> majority of countries 
> subscribe to (e.g. It's copyrighed)
> 
> 
> 3-2) They should also vote on a categorization of
> the article, i.e. if 
> the article is clearly in an area which is factually
> debated then the 
> article should be marked clearly indicating such.
> 
> 4) If the article has been accept and given a basic
> categorization it 
> should be added to a central database.
> 
> 5) There should be multiple ways to access the
> database
> 
> 5-1) There should be a search engine which searched
> all the 
> articles. When the resulting articles are displayed
> users should be 
> allowed to vote if they believe an article is
> factually incorrect. The 
> votes should be record in the database and the vote
> tally be shown 
> with the article. The search engine itself should
> not use the vote 
> data and it should be provided solely for the
> benefit of the users so 
> they can see what others thought of the article.
> 
> 5-2) A dmoz like index structure could be set-up,
> 
> 5-2a) At the highest level it will be controlled by
> one person (later 
> called the "primary controller")
> 5-2b) From the top of the directory structure
> subsections could be 
> created and controllers for these subsections
> appointed by the 
> primary controller.
> 5-2c) The controllers of these subsections will have
> all the 
> capabilities of the primary controller with the
> exception that they 
> will only control their own subsection.
> 
> The controllers would be responsible for adding
> articles to their 
> section of the index and also for creating
> subsections and 
> appointing subsection controllers.
> 
> This will allow a tree like structure of trust with
> the ultimate 
> authority with he person who started the index.
> 
> There could exist many of these indexes each
> favouring different 
> types of articles and different styles of viewpoint.
> For instance an 
> index could be setup which only dealt with
> non-controversial areas.
> 
> Imran Ghory
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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