today's elbow grease newsletter drew my attention to a wired news article about VA linux buying Andover, who recently bought slashdot

this led in turn to an older wired story describing slashdot in detail (where was i when this first came out?)

of particular interest to evolt is this excerpt:

"In this [slashdot] model you don't have editors deciding what is legitimate and what isn't... The flip side is that you don't have [an editor's] assurance in what is to be trusted and what isn't to be trusted."

evolt has a team of editors

(we used to have an "editorial committee" and "publicity committee" and so on, but the whole committee concept sort of died, quite some time ago)

evolt's team of editors are simply those individual evolt members who have "admin" privilege, and their primary role is to approve articles

so evolt has a minimal amount of regulation, unlike slashdot, which would appear to have none, judging by the wired story (i don't have enough time to read slashdot very often myself)

but this minimal amount of regulation has a fabulous leverage on the quality of the articles that get posted to the evolt site

not that i'm against the idea of "distributed trust" but i do believe the evolt method is right for us at this point in time

from the same article --

"All that seems to be missing from Slashdot-type sites is some kind of reputation rating system, where participants are assigned a trust rating based on feedback from the group and managed by a central authority."
so a favourable rating on an article from someone who is highly-rated should have more weight than a favourable rating from an unknown person?

we were only thinking of rating articles by number of hits, but this opens up many possibilities

should evolt have a rating system?

your feedback and suggestions are welcome...