Re: [Bug-gnupedia] Design proposal

[Imran Ghory]

On 23 Jan 2001, at 11:35, Tom Chance wrote:

> > I'm not suggesting that people be allow to vote to
> > block if they 
> > disagree with it only if it is
> > illegal/spam/nonsensical. 
> 
> This could get abused. What if somebody who feels very
> strongly against evolution theory votes to block it
> even though they just disagree with it. I mean, it
> would admittedly take a majority (or whatever
> percentage) of people to vote something off, so
> evolution theory is unlikely to go. But you would have
> to be very careful about abusing the system. I also
> think it is too close to the Nupedia idea of
> editorship, and as we have the opportunity to be more
> open I feel we should be as open as possible.

How would you prevent abuse ?

You'ld have to do it some way, and I think the way I sugest would 
be best because,

We would expect most votes to be unanimous, and require a 80% 
vote to reject an article, and those 80% should all have voted to 
reject it for the same reason.

The results of every vote should be published, people rejecting 
articles based on content would soon become reconizable and 
thus removable. 

We would need to ensure the initial review body is made up of 
people who aren't going to vote on content, that should be enough 
to ensure long term fairness.

> > They should be allowed to vote if they think an
> > article is on 
> > factually debatable ground, but this shouldn't cause
> > a rejection. 
> > This should provide data which can be associated by
> > the article so 
> > people know when reading it that the review body
> > thought that the 
> > topics in the article are on debated factual
> > grounds.
> 
> I think this is potentially a good idea, but the
> "vote" should be displayed at the bottom of the
> article

It should be up to the individual search engine/index to use the vote 
data as they see fit, however I think the "official" search engine 
should show the data at the bottom of the articles.

Imran Ghory