Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/-Ril-'s alternative suggestion

This proposal requires technical changes to the MediaWiki software.


 * 1) Each version of a page has a score, a high score being good, and a low score being bad

at the same score
 * 1) a certain group of logged in editors shall each be able to add or subtract 1 to the score
 * 2) which logged in editors are able to modify the score shall be determined by a random factor, and a score assigned to the editor
 * 3) the random factor shall be designed so that roughly Y% of logged in editors have the ability, where Y is at least 10, and is a suitable fixed number, to be decided
 * 4) the higher the editor's score, the more chance they have of being selected
 * 5) whether the editor can adjust the page version score shall be shall be indicated at the top right of the screen, near the current user-talk-watchlist-etc. menu
 * 6) after 2 hours, an editor with the ability shall lose it, unless subsequently re-selected by the partially random calculation
 * 7) if a version of an article has its score increased by 1, then the score assigned to the editor who created that version shall increase by 1
 * 8) if a version of an article has its score decreased by 1, then the score assigned to the editor who created that version shall decreased by 1
 * 9) editors with higher scores, as well as having greater chance of being selected to have article score changing power, shall be able to create versions which start with initially higher scores
 * 10) All current editors and any subsequent new editors shall start
 * 1) The version with the highest average score will be displayed on a new tab marked "presentation" as in "presentation version"
 * 2) The "presentation" tab will be the one displayed to people who first reach the page via a link or search, wheras the latest version (currently the version displayed to ordinary readers) will be displayed on a seperate tab marked "latest"
 * 3) The "history" section will have a function to present the history ordered by score, so that you can pick from other highly rated versions, or the currently highest rated version, rather than edit the latest, which may be vandalised


 * 1) Articles with an average score of less than 3 on all versions will appear as redlinks, and instead of the "presentation" version will display something like "This article exists but has been considered to not be worth keeping".
 * 2) To prevent edit conflicts, viewing version X and clicking the "edit this section/page" link will always edit version X - editing the latest version is no longer quite so important
 * 3) editor's cannot modify the score of versions that they have created (no original research)
 * 4) editor's cannot modify the score of versions that they have already modified, except to apply the reverse change (e.g. decrease instead of increase, or increase instead of decrease), or cancel their change

This way,
 * 1) vandalism isn't so significant as it's creator will usually be anonymous or new, and so their version won't start off with a high rating, and certainly won't be rated highly by other editors
 * 2) articles don't need deletion - articles where all versions have an average score of less than 3 (i.e. less than 30% support) won't count.
 * 3) this should reduce revert wars, as they won't make a blind bit of difference to the "presentation" version, and people don't even need to see the latest version when editing.
 * 4) edits can be made to the "presentation" version as well as to the "current" version
 * 5) the "presentation" version will remain the "presentation" version, until the majority has decided that there is a better one
 * 6) this will happen automatically
 * 7) the random assignment of powers mean that edit warriers won't necessarily gain influence over their version's of articles
 * 8) it encourages people to log in, and to make reasonable edits

Obviously, there is still potential for abuse, so
 * 1) There will be a new type of user
 * 2) This new type of user will initially contain no-one, neither current administrators, nor Jimbo Wales
 * 3) People can only gain the position of this type of user by having a high score for their edits AND by being voted in
 * 4) The requirement for having a high score for their edits shall be a technical one, and their position will automatically, by the software, be lost if their editing score falls below the threshold
 * 5) This type of user will have the power to add or subtract 1 from each editor's score
 * 6) This type of user cannot modify the score of editors that they have already modified, except to apply the reverse change (e.g. decrease instead of increase, or increase instead of decrease), or cancel their change

Note that
 * 1) A version's score shall be displayed in the history, together with the current editor's prior modification to it (i.e. "+", "-", or "0") if there is one
 * 2) An editor's score shall only be displayed to the editor, and to people with the power to directly change it.

This means that
 * 1) Problem users can have their editing scores reduced so that they are unable to do any harm
 * 2) Users cannot be subjected to bullying by single users or a group of users with the power to change their score, as others with this power will easily neutralise the effect, without such action even being noticable, and they can only adjust the score by 1 anyway
 * 3) politically motivated adjustments to people's scores will be neutralised by counter adjustments from the other side of the political fence

The issue of how to deal with re-directs and moves under this system is one that will need solving.

Comments etc.
Please use the talk page. ( ! | ? | * ) 22:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)