A very nice article by David MacLean on this subject:

  
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/fair-society-t-afford-secrets/story-14287575-detail/story.html

A quick read and a nice foil for the silly season santa story.

Seb

On 27 December 2011 23:28, Owen Blacker <[email protected]> wrote:
> Personally, whilst I can see the appeal, I think it's a terrible idea.
> (Sorry 'n' all.)
>
> Why should new users not be able to make an FOI request without members of a
> bunch of established users allowing it? Sure, some users make vexatious
> requests, but most don't. And, frankly, that process is annoying enough on
> Stack Overflow.
>
> As Paul Perrin mentioned, the only stupid question is the one you don't ask.
> If FOI Officers are too stupid to spend only a few pence pasting a standard
> "sod off" response immediately they receive a vexatious request, that's
> their problem. Plenty of questions can seem vexatious, but would prove not
> to be based on the answer they get.
>
> The idea that asking about "witches, werewolves, wizards, ghosts, vampires,
> zombies and demons" is intrinsically expensive and A Big Problem™ is
> ludicrous and I do not think we should be making things more difficult for
> our users because some reactionary fools are trying to find pretexts to
> attack our FOI law.
> --
> Owen Blacker, London GB
> @owenblacker
> www.mysociety.org
> Google ID: [email protected]
>
>
>
> On 23 December 2011 14:53, Stephen Booth <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 23 December 2011 14:06, Simon Haywood <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> </lurk>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> stuff like, eg:
>>>
>>> For first-time users of WDTK, force their request to go to peer-review
>>> first. Other users of the site would advise if it was a well written
>>> request, or maybe if it had already been sent - or perhaps even if the
>>> information was easily available through other means. Once a user had been
>>> through a number of requests, their status would be elevated, and they
>>> wouldn't require the review. Whether you'd actually block requests that
>>> didn't pass the "peer test", would be a debate for WDTK.
>>
>>
>> Personally I like that.  Might I suggest also a Slashdot style peer
>> modding.  Start new users with a negative score, to send without a peer
>> review you need a positive score, users witha  positive score can send
>> requests without requiring a peer review and users who's score is above a
>> certain (quite low) value can mod requests (sent or requiring peer review)
>> up or down.  Adapt the system for watching authorities so that requests
>> requiring peer review are at the top of the digest and encourage users to
>> review them and mod them appropriately.  Users who ask well formed, useful
>> and relevant requests will acheive a positive score quite quickly but if
>> they start asking frivilous questions risk being modded down and going
>> negative.  Maybe limit the maximum impact one request can have on a person's
>> score.  e.g. if we start new users at -10 limit the maximum impact the score
>> for a single request to +/- 5 so that they have to have at least 2 requests
>> peer reviewed and modded up by 5 or more people each before they can send an
>> unreviewed request and three (or more depending on where the bar is set)
>> modded up before they can start modding themselves.
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>> --
>> It's better to ask a silly question than to make a silly assumption.
>>
>> http://stephensorablog.blogspot.com/ |
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/stephenboothuk | Skype: stephenbooth_uk
>>
>> Apparently I'm a "Eierlegende Woll-Milch-Sau", I think it was meant as a
>> compliment.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> developers-public mailing list
>> [email protected]
>>
>> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
>>
>> Unsubscribe:
>> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/owen%40blacker.me.uk
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> developers-public mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
>
> Unsubscribe:
> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/seb.bacon%40gmail.com



-- 
skype: seb.bacon
mobile: 07790 939224
land: 01531 671074

_______________________________________________
developers-public mailing list
[email protected]
https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public

Unsubscribe: 
https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to