[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Bug-gnupedia] Ratings
Re: [Bug-gnupedia] Ratings
Sat, 20 Jan 2001 09:12:42 -0800 (PST)
Yeah any marking that is based on how accurate or
truthful an article is, is a very very bad idea. It
will yet again further marginalise views that may not
be common thought (like the light bulb, or the Chinese
version of Tianemen Square as cited earlier). No
matter how wrong a slant is on something (unless it is
patently factually wrong to the point of being
rubbish, like an article claiming the 2nd World War
ended on D-Day when the Americans landed in Britain
and the French rose up) it should be given the same
importance on the site as any other. I think the
readers will be intelligent enough to work out the
truth from the spin. And if they're not, then they
really need to be, and I don't think we should cater
for the brainwashed people in this world.
--- Rob Scott <address@hidden> wrote: > 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
> a good score, because it is common opinion that he
> However if someone wrote an article saying that
> Swan invented it, he would get a bad score, no
> how right he was. This would be effectively
> a voting slip at the bottom saying 'WHO THINKS I'M
> This is not a popularity contest.
> However i do think that the first score would be a
> good idea.
> --- Peteris Paikens <address@hidden> wrote: >
> 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,
> > 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
> or your free @yahoo.ie address at
> Bug-gnupedia mailing list
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.