<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />Why Ratings Will Ruin [b]Wikipedia[/b]
Gizmodo Australia
Did you know you can rate pages on Wikipedia now? It's new. And it's meant to get you involved, with the ultimate goal of increasing the site's accuracy, diversity and completeness. It won't work. Sure. ...

and more »

View the article

Despite the very inaccurate headline, the author clearly knows a thing or two about WP. The "rate this article" feature is too new to have had any impact, but on WP anything that can be gamed will be gamed. This will be gamed once people start paying attention to article ratings.

Um, not like we don't have article ratings already anyway. ho hum

But not from the hoi poloi. I'd like to see these things limited to IP users who have made no edits to Wikipedia themselves. Or perhaps less than 20 or something. Anyway, people with no vested interest in making the site look good.

It's utterly useless. A single person can easily give any number of votes by using more IP's.

One problem with the new rating system is that when faced with an article such as Hippo eats dwarf, one can rate on the scales of "trustworthy", "objective", "complete", and "well-written", but there is no scale for "importance" or "usefulness" or something that answers the question Is this article good for anything and should it exist at all?