[Debatewise RRT] Re: debates
- From: Harriet Lowe <tehexile@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: debatewiserrt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 17:41:51 +0100
am julno-ing this month so might be light on contributions.
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 9:26 AM, David Crane <dc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> We definitely want to encourage the type of Wiki Zen Master
> contributions you describe. The key benefit of wiki's is that they
> can be improved, so people who improve grammar, fix spelling and add
> references are very important to us. The question is how best to
> encourage that activity.
>
> Ultimately, I think we need to amend the Karma system. Part of me
> wants to remove it entirely as I'm not convinced it works (some
> research suggests as many people are discouraged by karma as are
> encouraged by it). On the other hand, it's entirely natural for
> people to want some kind of reward for their effort and maybe karma
> points are it.
>
> In the medium term I'd like to introduce a system of badges such as
> Reddit and Foresquare uses (though obviously not the drunken ones). In
> this way we could reward grammar, spelling and reference heroes - as
> well as things such as most insightful comment and so on.
>
> The reason this is a medium term plan revolves around the fact we've
> got very limited resources. We need programmers to make these kinds
> of changes and the ones we can afford are working on a private debates
> feature as well as importing the entire Debatabase from idebate.org.
>
> In the spirit of transparency I'd also like to be clear how our
> finances work. We get $3,000 a month from the Open Society Foundation
> (or at least will until the end of the year, after then who knows what
> happens). This money is allocated as follows:
> Rent: $750
> Interns: $1200
> Site dev: $700
> Misc $300
>
> So whilst I would like to introduce badges and find a way of
> recognising Zen Master contributions we just don't have the budget for
> it and wont for a good few months I'm afraid.
>
> If you'd like to continue this debate can I point you to:
>
> http://debatewise.org/debates/2106-should-debater-of-the-month-be-based-on-number-of-points-and-counterpoints
>
> Dave
>
>
> On 8 July 2010 06:27, nadia siddiqi <nadshi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Suggestion:
> > I want prizes for getting the highest karma. And you may not understand
> the
> > profound effect of small edits on the quality of a website but Harriet
> > understands the power of an apostrophe.And the caustic detriment caused
> by a
> > punctuation; misplaced.
> > The entirely boring task of fixing mine and other people's spelling and
> > grammatical errors requires that I:
> > 1) Read everything written in each point that I edit which is much harder
> > for me personally, than writing a bunch of long points(which incidentally
> I
> > also do).
> > 2) You have my eternal gratitude for being wonderfully transparent about
> > your system; now I'll just keep adding random lengthy points and not care
> > for the many you're/there/lead/than-s written in lieu of
> > your/their/then/led-s among other vociferously common errors all over the
> > website.
> >
> > Measuring 'quality' is an even less objective/transparent system than
> the
> > one in place right now. Who gets to decide what is good/bad? Different
> > people react differently to the same piece of literature/art/writing; why
> do
> > think J.K.Rowling had such a hard time getting the first Potter
> published?
> > The same can be said/written about a panoply of other great writers.
> >
> > Nadia
> > Sorry but yeah; never mind.
> > You're awesome and I'm not.
> > I can't even land a job. Can't even get a literary agent for my ancient
> > manuscript...
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Alex Helling <alex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> It seems that this is a discussion that will run and run!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I am pretty sure I have explained it before, it has not changed since I
> >> took over the RRT about 8 months ago. I give 1 point for each RRT debate
> >> someone creates (with me now creating half of the debates this is no
> longer
> >> really relevant), but that is the ONLY bit where it matters if the
> debate is
> >> RRT or not (I may have confused you by saying I ignore revisewise
> debates –
> >> that is because they do not come up on the main debatewise page. All
> debates
> >> which you can see on the home page are included in my counting system).
> >>
> >> I go through all debates from the end of the previous month (usually a
> >> week or so before the end so that I don’t miss late additions)through to
> the
> >> 1st of the month. I look at the join the debate section to work out who
> has
> >> made what point and they get 1 point for each point or counterpoint they
> >> make.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> So pretty simple.
> >>
> >> 1, I look at all debates made during the month
> >>
> >> 2, I give a point for each RRT debate created
> >>
> >> 3, I give a point for each point and counterpoint on ANY debate
> >>
> >> 4, the only slightly inconsistent bit, I sometimes give points for
> >> comments in the join the debate that are not a point/counterpoint if it
> is
> >> useful and relevant as it is something that does not happen much.
> Ideally we
> >> would like several people to give their views on a point and then
> >> collaborate in making the point itself but we are a very long way from
> this.
> >> I don’t very often add points for comments yet as there are not too many
> >> comments that are not part of the point/counterpoint yet.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Problems with my system
> >>
> >> 1, it does not take in to account changes to old debates
> >>
> >> 2, it fails to encourage editing of others points – which is something
> we
> >> really want to encourage.
> >>
> >> 3, it is too much about quantity of points not quality. (unfortunately
> as
> >> yet we have no measure of quality – If I did it myself I suspect I would
> not
> >> be consistent)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I think that previously the DOTM was simply decided by the number of
> >> debates taken, which is not too helpful in determining the usefulness of
> >> users either, as someone may be posting detailed debates while another
> >> simply filling in one or two points.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Now the karma system.
> >>
> >> 1, gives 10 points for creating a debate on the site
> >>
> >> 2, gives 1 point (might be 2 not too sure) for creating a point or
> >> counterpoint.
> >>
> >> 3, gives 1 point for each edit, no matter how small (not sure if it
> >> includes edits to the title/intro).
> >>
> >> 4, I think it gives a point for voting (again not certain.)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Problems with using it:
> >>
> >> 1, relies too much on editing and can easily be abused, simply edit one
> >> point over and over! You might have noticed the ‘Global Youth Panel’ has
> had
> >> an immense gain in karma from about 500 to almost 3000 in just 2 weeks,
> that
> >> is because it is broken and is editing one point twice each hour simply
> >> switching things around!
> >>
> >> 2, In order to include everyone I need to know their karma to start with
> >> so it would be a big task for the first month (hence I am thinking I
> will
> >> only include it for the posters who are most likely to win – it is not
> >> difficult to find out what your karma is!)
> >>
> >> 3, it is also based on quantity not quality
> >>
> >> 4, does not give points for commenting in join the debate.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> What would be really good would be if we had something that told us the
> >> number of edits/points or counterpoints started/comments made/debates
> >> started/amount of applause in the last week/month/year then they could
> be
> >> weighted appropriately with points and creating debates given more
> weight
> >> than comments/edits but everything included. I guess it will be a long
> time
> >> before we have an automated counting system more sophisticated than
> karma or
> >> that breaks down where the karma is coming from.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> So at the moment there is no golden solution that I know of.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Quote from 29th September email sent to RRT:
> >>
> >> This is my first time totting up the scores so I feel that I should
> >> explain what went into it. Although David did tell me I have already
> >> forgotten what he did to decide. In my case I have basically given 1
> mark
> >> for starting a debate for the RRT and 1 mark for each point and
> >> counter-point made. This also applies to adding points and counter
> points to
> >> other people’s debates (whether or not they are ones from our weekly
> list).
> >> This is in an effort to encourage you to add to each other’s debates.
> >>
> >> I looked through all the debates (except the WODC ones) written since
> the
> >> 8th of September when the last debater of the month was announced.
> >> Unfortunately U can’t give marks for each edit made to existing points
> as it
> >> does not show who has edited points in the ‘join the debate’ and it
> would
> >> take me ages to look through the history of each point. I do not give
> points
> >> for making debates that are not sent out in the weekly emails, however
> do
> >> give points for adding points/counter points, in an attempt to reduce
> the
> >> number of debates that have no points in them. I obviously in my sweep
> of
> >> debates won’t see any editing you do to older debates so if you want
> them
> >> included in your score email me saying what older debates you have
> edited.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> If you think that the scoring should be done differently feel free to
> >> email me suggestions!
> >>
> >> At the time no one replied with other ideas or comments, I am still
> happy
> >> to take them! (or alterations to the current one system)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Started a debate
> >>
> http://debatewise.org/debates/2106-should-debater-of-the-month-be-based-on-number-of-points-and-counterpoints
> >> (wish I had a catchy name for my system!) feel free to add any ideas as
> an
> >> against point or email me if you don’t want to add it to the debate.
> >> Otherwise the debate is as usual.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Alex
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: debatewiserrt-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> [mailto:debatewiserrt-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of nadia siddiqi
> >> Sent: 07 July 2010 07:00
> >> To: debatewiserrt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: [Debatewise RRT] Re: debates
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Alex,
> >>
> >> Okay, I've been debater of the week for five weeks by the Karma system.
> >> And I only commented on R.R.T debates.I'm very curious about your
> counting
> >> system. Would you be wonderful enough to make it transparent, whenever
> you
> >> find the time?
> >>
> >> Nadia
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:54 AM, nadia siddiqi <nadshi@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> What about my overall Karma score, I was planning to hit 10,000 and who
> >> counts the karma, if your counting system is different?
> >>
> >> Nadia
> >>
> >> BBC One and BBC Two lack diversity, imagination and innovation.
> >>
> >> Melissa
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >> On 6 Jul 2010, at 18:53, "Alex Helling" <alex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> BBC One and BBC Two lack diversity, imagination and innovation.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Work done with anxiety about results is far inferior to work done
> without
> >> such anxiety, in the calm of self-surrender. Seek refuge in the
> knowledge of
> >> Brahman. They who work selfishly for results are miserable.
> --"Bhagavad
> >> Gita."
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Work done with anxiety about results is far inferior to work done
> without
> >> such anxiety, in the calm of self-surrender. Seek refuge in the
> knowledge of
> >> Brahman. They who work selfishly for results are miserable.
> --"Bhagavad
> >> Gita."
> >>
> >> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >> Version: 9.0.830 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2985 - Release Date: 07/06/10
> >> 07:36:00
> >
> >
> > --
> > Work done with anxiety about results is far inferior to work done without
> > such anxiety, in the calm of self-surrender. Seek refuge in the knowledge
> of
> > Brahman. They who work selfishly for results are miserable. --"Bhagavad
> > Gita."
> >
>
>
>
> --
> www.debatewise.org
> 020 3393 7223 | 07956 292 567
> Wave: david23crane@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
Other related posts:
