I think that forcing users to go through peer review could put off the kind of people who know less about FOIA. Offering a non-compulsory friendly advice or mentoring system could be more productive. Concrete cases of systematic abuse that could bring the platform into disrepute could be dealt with through moderators.
Experience is that a small number of trolls can make life miserable for lots of site admins, and FOI appears to attract more than its fair share of obsessive types, and the more they feel "persecuted" the worst it becomes, so any step in this direction could open a big can of workload for those in charge of enforcement. -- Javier Ruiz [email protected] +44(0)7877 911 412 @javierruiz On Tuesday, 27 December 2011 at 23:28, Owen Blacker 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 (http://twitter.com/owenblacker) > www.mysociety.org (http://www.mysociety.org) > Google ID: [email protected] > (mailto:[email protected]) > > > > On 23 December 2011 14:53, Stephen Booth <[email protected] > (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > > On 23 December 2011 14:06, Simon Haywood <[email protected] > > (mailto:[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] > > (mailto:[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] > (mailto:[email protected]) > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > > Unsubscribe: > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/javier%40openrightsgroup.org >
_______________________________________________ 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
