Talk:Archive:Watch Rating for Articles: Difference between revisions
imported>Stephen Ewen m (→Purpose?) |
imported>John Stephenson m (moved CZ Talk:Watch Rating for Articles to Talk:Archive:Watch Rating for Articles: Move to Archive: namespace; see http://ec.citizendium.org/wiki/EC:R-2011-011) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
Notice that if we do this, the policy about it should be no more detailed than that for our article status rating, arguably much more important, which is contained entirely on [[CZ:The Article Checklist]]. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 02:21, 10 August 2007 (CDT) | Notice that if we do this, the policy about it should be no more detailed than that for our article status rating, arguably much more important, which is contained entirely on [[CZ:The Article Checklist]]. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 02:21, 10 August 2007 (CDT) | ||
:One other ''major'' benefit is it will provide a category of articles for constables to patrol more closely--something like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: | :One other ''major'' benefit is it will provide a category of articles for constables to patrol more closely--something like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:NPOV_disputes_from_August_2007 this] ''is'' very useful. Imagine the benefit at 5,000, then 15,000, edits per day. One idea is to just place some articles as "on watch", to add the category. —[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] [[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]] 03:23, 10 August 2007 (CDT) | ||
I suppose this is essentially one of the effects of the "dispute watch." The question is, however, why you think it will be useful. Just spell it out--after the [[CZ:Dispute Watch]] failure, I'm skeptical. And consider also that some people will, as Will Nesbitt did, look at the "watch" articles and "pile on" (or foment unrest where it doesn't currently exist :-) ). In other words, let's get our assumptions on the table about how this simple system will work, and then poke at these assumptions. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 05:17, 10 August 2007 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 03:28, 25 February 2012
I think the watch rating scheme should be developed in full as shown on the article page for this discussion page. But in the early stages, I think it should be implemented in a much-reduced way.
Possibly have only one category to start, reserved for articles that need special attention because they've been involved in some controversy. See how that works, and as things develop, implement the more detailed scheme. Louis F. Sander 14:31, 5 June 2007 (CDT)
- For me, the Low-Watch rating is every bit as important as the other ratings, to allow fair use media to placed into article PRIOR them being nominated for approval. Stephen Ewen 15:26, 5 June 2007 (CDT)
Fair-use media?
Stephen - I have only just now started noticing the new proposal for controversy ratings, and I do not understand what the concern is regarding fair-use media. I'll admit I haven't gone over all the forum postings and discussion pages. Can you please explain the specific concern? Anthony Argyriou 20:34, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
- It's easiest if we just take an example. Let's say someone writes a biography of a highly controversial living person and wants it to contain fair use images and they add some. Before it is approved, while it is being drafted, it may on some days contain material that is just not neutral but, material that is a partisan slug fest. Now let's say, on that day, the subject or his or her representatives finds the CZ article, in that state, AND with fair use images they own. I think I do not need to carry this story out further, but you get the idea. Whether fair use is challenged or not often hinges on whether the use of the material is offensive use to the copyright holder. Better to just avoid that and say, for controversial articles, no fair use until they are nominated for approval. See? —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 23:34, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
I'd be happy if this turned to just a simple Yes or No rating. —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 23:35, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
Purpose?
Just because we can do things, that doesn't mean we should. (Advice that Wikipedians frequently forget.) So, what exactly is the purpose of watch ratings? I'm not sure I understand. Will it really help the community to manage controversial articles if we identify them as such? I'm not sure it will.
Notice that if we do this, the policy about it should be no more detailed than that for our article status rating, arguably much more important, which is contained entirely on CZ:The Article Checklist. --Larry Sanger 02:21, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
- One other major benefit is it will provide a category of articles for constables to patrol more closely--something like this is very useful. Imagine the benefit at 5,000, then 15,000, edits per day. One idea is to just place some articles as "on watch", to add the category. —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 03:23, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
I suppose this is essentially one of the effects of the "dispute watch." The question is, however, why you think it will be useful. Just spell it out--after the CZ:Dispute Watch failure, I'm skeptical. And consider also that some people will, as Will Nesbitt did, look at the "watch" articles and "pile on" (or foment unrest where it doesn't currently exist :-) ). In other words, let's get our assumptions on the table about how this simple system will work, and then poke at these assumptions. --Larry Sanger 05:17, 10 August 2007 (CDT)