Home > Arts & Humanities > Writing > Writing at Helium
Who should rate Helium debate articles: Those who agree or disagree?
Results so far:
| Agree | 62% | 478 votes | Total: 767 votes | |
| Disagree | 38% | 289 votes |
Agree
by Carol Gioia
Created on: October 10, 2007 Last Updated: February 27, 2011
A debate is a formal presentation of both sides of a controversial subject. Opposing sides of the issue under discussion offer reasons why they are "for" or "against" the argument. Helium has many debate articles passing through the rating system.
When it is time to rate Helium articles written to a debate, what is the criteria for determining who the rating judges will be? Some believe the articles should be rated by those who concur, while others insist the disputing segment of raters will give a more objective opinion. Yet another point of view believes both sides should rate randomly.
As Helium writers, we have a twofold role; to present well written, informative articles to the public and to rate the work of our peers. In the capacity of rater, it is your job to decide which article more accurately fulfills Helium writing standards. You are in a better position to focus on your mission if you rate debate articles on the side you agree with, in order to insure you have no emotional investment and the best written articles rise to the top.
In a perfect world, the debate articles could be presented for rating randomly, and those "for" and "against" would have equal opportunity to rate all articles. Human nature, however, is not conducive to "perfect world" behavior and in some cases negativity, tunnel vision and closed minds could skew the ratings. Taking all these factors and possibilities into consideration, Helium has devised its own "foolproof" method of rating.
Debate articles have two distinct opportunities to rise in the rating ranks. The "for" and "against" articles are presented separately for judging, so articles on the same side are only competing with like opinions, thus allowing the rater to focus on the priority of choosing the better written work. This method takes negative emotion and prejudice out of the equation, as much as is humanly possible. If an article is well presented and adheres to Helium standards, it has equal opportunity in the rating pool.
Those on the opposing side of a debate could potentially be tainted by their own strong feelings and opinions and, perhaps, be unable to judge the writing objectively. Because the majority of raters have integrity and intelligence, this would not often be the case, but it could occur frequently enough to skew the results.
In order to come up with a conclusive decision in this discussion about debate articles and how they should be rated, it is necessary to examine the rating system itself.
Raters on Helium have the task of choosing between two presented articles to determine which is best. There is a set of guidelines to follow when considering the superiority of one article over another. The general rules for rating all articles, including debates, are as follows:
* Consider the relevance of the article to the title
* Check for accurate spelling, punctuation and grammar
* Is the information provided accurate and thorough
* Does the writer stay on topic
* Is the article formatted for easy readability
* Does the article meet Helium word count criteria
Debate articles have additonal criteria to meet:
* How well does the writer know his subject
* Does the writer present a clear cut position
* Is the presentation logical and reasonable with no emotional rants
* Is there respect for the opposition, and absence of negative comments
* Does the writer focus on his argument without veering off on tangents
* Does the article have an assertive conclusion
In most cases the rating system works efficiently. It is not difficult, following the above listed guidelines, to choose the superior article.
The additonal guidelines for debate articles, being followed meticulously by those in the best position to judge, i.e. the same side of the argument, will garner the same efficient rating results.
Viewing this discussion about rating debate articles from all perspectives, one must conclude, without qualification or reservation, that having the "same side" individuals rate articles aligning with their own opinions insures the greatest possibility of voting being based solely on the quality of the article.
Learn more about this author, Carol Gioia.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Disagree
by Perry McCarney
Created on: October 11, 2007 Last Updated: February 12, 2011
The question here at Helium is whether the debate articles should be rated by those who agree with the premise articulated in the article or those who don't. Currently those who agree rate them. Perhaps it shouldn't matter and anyone should be able to rate articles on either side, although only against each other. However, it is probable that this would make rankings within debate topics extremely volatile. But does that really matter?
Helium is the website where knowledge rather than emotion is meant to rule. On this basis it is my contention that articles proclaiming for one side of a debate should be judged by those writers who favor the other side, if it has to be one or the other. This may appear on first view to be counter-productive, won't those who feel the other way deliberately rate articles they feel persuasive lower than those they don't, if not consciously then subconsciously? Well, that depends on the integrity of the Helium community; personally I believe that Helium members will rate articles on the side they disagree with on the basis of their quality, where those that agree might be more inclined to favor those that detail their own attitudes.
Helium asks us to decide our opinion on debate topics possibly before reading any of the arguments submitted by either side. We are then only allowed to rate articles on the side we have either voted or written for. How can this facilitate rational discussion or reasoned debate?
When I was at school I was captain of my form's debating team. We lost our first debate, but never lost another. This was in large part because I was able to think outside the box, I came up with arguments on the issue being debated that the opposition had not thought of, and therefore had no answer to.
I apply this same principle here at Helium, or I did, I rarely write to debate topics any more because, basically, my approach does not do well. I feel perfectly justified in believing that this is because the articles are rated by those on that side of the debate. The accepted, common arguments in favor of that side of the debate are rated up, because they conform with the prejudices of those rating, sometimes consciously but even subconsciously in those who believe they are trying to rate unbiasedly.
By only being presented with articles to rate on the side that we emotively agree with, are we not in danger of, whether intentionally or not, promoting those that appeal to us emotionally. Does this not minimize our thoughts on and regard for the rational arguments pertaining to the issue in question?
If we are instead asked to rate the articles written favoring the other side, will we not be forced by our own integrity to consider the arguments presented? Diatribes, appealing to the emotional aspect of supporters will then be rejected, voted low by the raters! Articles that offer a clear and rational perspective will float to the top, allowing non-aligned readers to compare rational arguments on the topic and form an educated opinion.
Someone who agrees is more likely to rate highly the article that caters to their emotions rather than one that presents a rational argument. Someone who doesn't agree, when given the choice of a reasoned article or an emotional one is far more likely to rate the reasoned higher, ESPECIALLY if they are emotionally engaged in the opposite point of view.
I admit to some self-interest here. After discussion through a thread on the community boards, I initiated this debate because one of my articles for a debate was ranked towards the bottom, and on the present rating system this is totally understandable. I don't support the side I have taken for what would be considered the standard reasons. I support it for logical reasons that have been buried under the emotional arguments abounding on both sides. My arguments do not appeal to those emotionally engaged on the side I have written for and thus rank low. As logical arguments however, there is some chance that they might reach through the emotional prejudice of those on the other side to change their opinion. It would be nice to be given that opportunity.
I would think that where knowledge rules, it would be preferred to have the reasoned arguments rating higher than the emotive ones.
I would propose that by having the "opposition" do the rating, quality, reasoned articles are more likely to reach the top ranks. Not only that, but once people know that this will be the case, they will have to try harder at rationalizing their own opinions and arguments for their articles. Instead of just feeling about a topic, they will have to think about it as well, perhaps helping their own personal development. In addition, it will mean that raters will be reading the opposite view, thus allowing them to also broaden their perspectives.
Learn more about this author, Perry McCarney.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Write and get published
Share with other writers
Polish your freelancing skills
Quality articles from proven freelancers
Exclusive rights, fast turnaround
Brand engagement, business blogging -- our writers do it all
INFORMATION
Copyright © 2002-2012 Helium, Inc. All rights reserved.
Helium.com: A Service of RR Donnelley