[Bug-gnupedia] Re : Just a few more issues

[Robert Fisher]

Thom Chance wrote :

"And finally on ranking articles Good-bad or 1-5, I
think this could be a mistake. This will marginalise
views that aren't mainstream, so that if somebody
submits an article on gene therapy that is very pro
the subject, and a lot of people are against it, the
article would look bad perhaps unjustly."

This is an interesting point. However, I think that given that
the Gp is likley to receive a large volume of articles (hopefully!), 
many of which will cover nearly identical topics, a ranking system will be
enormously useful. Also, the example you give is perhaps not what we
normally think of as encylopedia material. Normally encyclopedias are very
rich in factual content, but shallow on opinion. Highly opinionated
articles may indeed be ranked lowed, but I believe this is a GOOD
thing. Articles which at least attempt to cover the topics evenly deserve
a higher ranking -- in my opinion, a comprehensive article detailing both
sides of the history of abortion in the United States (for instance) is a
far more worthwhile article than a polemic from either side.

As for why a ranking system is crucial, imagine, for instance, perusing
/. articles without any moderator rankings whatsoever. There will be gems
in there, but you would have to a lot of time to actually find them. If
you set your preferences to read only those comments ranked 4 and above,
you can immediately access some very thoughtful and insightful
commentary; much better than you could normally get from any professional
media pundit. Naturally, no system is perfect, and some posts will have
been ignored by moderators and others will be ranked unfairly; however, I
find the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.

Part of the bias problem can be circumvented by using a weighting system
discussed in my Strawman proposal which weights by the reader's ranking as
a contributing author in that subject area. 

Best,

Bob