[Bug-gnupedia]E2

[Tom Tollenaere]

With respect to Dries' last submission: oops!  I was not trying to suggest 
anything - I just pointed out how everything2 does things.  Actually, the whole 
high-priest things makes for that e2 style, which you either like or not (and I 
don't - although that won't stop me from using e2... won't contribute, though). 
 I don't think an encyclopedia should have any kind of this-is-our-little-club 
style; we should probably try to produce things a bit more 'sec': whether an 
article deserves to be included should only depend on it's 
information/education value (and good taste), not on 'style' or 'high priests' 
likes or dislikes.  For that reason I do like the 'blind' review concept: 
that's what scientific journals do too..

So basically, I agree with your statements, sorry for the confusion!


On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Dries van Oosten wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Here's roughtly how E2 (everything2) organises reviews - don't flame me
> for not getting the details right:
> - everyone can submit however many 'articles' they like;
> - depending on how many submissions you've made, and how they are
> rated, you get a status (like 'novice' 'apprentice' 'monk' whatever).
> - the higher your status the more you can 'do' in terms of reviewing
> others.

You wanna turn this thing into a role playing game *grin*.
But seriously. I think there should not be a grading system based on that.
The only subjective grading should be the review report. When you want to
know wether or not you agree with this reviewer, you can see by how he/she
reviews other stuff. If you want to know if you trust the content, you can
ofcourse look up other content by the same author and see how it was
received. I don't think we should judge the quality of content in any
other way. Let the readers decide what they like or not.

You can't simply judge someone by volume. I can write ten articles about
one subject, but if I write one really good article about another subject,
what is worth more? Let the readers decide what they wish to read. If
there is demand for more, it can be added later.

> - e2 keeps a list of 'new submissions', so 'old guys' usually check out
> the new submissions, and quickly quote 'em.  If it's a really good
> submission it gets 'colled' (which is, like being /.-ed, kinda cool).
> - any submission that gets too many negative reviews is dumped
> - high priests have the 'power' to dump anything they don't like

This is definitely something you do not want and that goes against
everything else we have been discussing here today. You don't want to deny
people access. Anyone can post and anyone can read. It's open. The
regulation has the be kept to a minimum. ?I like you positive remarks
(colling cool new submissions), but I really hate your remarks about high
priest having the power to dump stuff. If you want that, you go to a MUTT.


> Groeten,
> Dries