Talk:Opinion Wiki: Difference between revisions
(hmm.) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This is _not_ normative. See it more as an investigation into the possibility to use a wiki to manage quite formal processes. | This is _not_ normative. See it more as an investigation into the possibility to use a wiki to manage quite formal processes. | ||
:including an [[audit]] to see if there is really some shenanigans going on | |||
This approach opens up lot's of new questions. Especially the vote classes are unclear now and that's not good. As I see it there seems to be more then two but less then three classes of votes if/when the [[WikiVote]] is implemented. [[Indirect Vote]]s are encapsylated in the WikiVotes, but the question of where are the [[Direct Vote]]s and how they could be trusted seems like a real integrity hazard, but actually they've been that way for a while --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 14:24, 13 Oct 2003 (EEST) | This approach opens up lot's of new questions. Especially the vote classes are unclear now and that's not good. As I see it there seems to be more then two but less then three classes of votes if/when the [[WikiVote]] is implemented. [[Indirect Vote]]s are encapsylated in the WikiVotes, but the question of where are the [[Direct Vote]]s and how they could be trusted seems like a real integrity hazard, but actually they've been that way for a while --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 14:24, 13 Oct 2003 (EEST) | ||
:Best way to deal with the trust issue is to have a [[Consumerium Troll]] account for each untrusted or suspicious group of edits. For instance if you think every edit that mentions [[KitKat McFlurry]] is free advertising for the two companies that own those [[brand name]]s, then, you can link all such edits together into a common [[Troll:Sugar-coated spam]] account, and see if they are promoting other products bad for your teeth. If so they may be being paid by the Federation of Dentists, etc.. | |||
:A [[Role:]] account like [[User:Mediator]] (to deal with disputes) or [[User:Terminator]] (to figure out which trolls or users are really being paid to skew ratings one way, and get rid of them) could also exist. | |||
:The only difference between a [[Role:]] and a [[Troll:]] is that you associate an edit with a role before the fact, and with a troll only after it is made. But this is very important symmetry... | |||
Revision as of 23:18, 15 October 2003
This is _not_ normative. See it more as an investigation into the possibility to use a wiki to manage quite formal processes.
- including an audit to see if there is really some shenanigans going on
This approach opens up lot's of new questions. Especially the vote classes are unclear now and that's not good. As I see it there seems to be more then two but less then three classes of votes if/when the WikiVote is implemented. Indirect Votes are encapsylated in the WikiVotes, but the question of where are the Direct Votes and how they could be trusted seems like a real integrity hazard, but actually they've been that way for a while --Juxo 14:24, 13 Oct 2003 (EEST)
- Best way to deal with the trust issue is to have a Consumerium Troll account for each untrusted or suspicious group of edits. For instance if you think every edit that mentions KitKat McFlurry is free advertising for the two companies that own those brand names, then, you can link all such edits together into a common Troll:Sugar-coated spam account, and see if they are promoting other products bad for your teeth. If so they may be being paid by the Federation of Dentists, etc..
- A Role: account like User:Mediator (to deal with disputes) or User:Terminator (to figure out which trolls or users are really being paid to skew ratings one way, and get rid of them) could also exist.