Arts & Humanities >
Writing & Rating at Helium
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedWho should rate Helium debate articles:Those who agree or disagree?
Results so far:
| Agree | 61% | 370 votes | Total: 605 votes | |
| Disagree | 39% | 235 votes |
Agree
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesHelium's exclusive rating system assigns us stars for doing "quality rates." We must go along with the "majority" in a system backed by algorithms to earn rating stars. If I am "forced" to rate articles I do not, in my gut, believe in, I am probably going to "skip" a lot of ratings. I don't want to feel like I am back in school doing an unwanted assignment on which I am being graded.
The American Heritage dictionary defines debate as "A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition." The obsolete definition is to fight or quarrel.
No matter how friendly we are as competitors, I think the "teams" could become un-objective and quarrelsome if given the opportunity. In fact, I used to avoid writing to emotionally laden debate topics because I didn't want to be bombarded with negative e-mails. Since raters only rate the side they agree with, I feel safer about expressing my views among like-minded peers, and I have written to several topics.
It is human nature to be biased about something. Psychologists say we tend to ignore facts and ideas that go against our beliefs and embrace those that agree with us (confirmation bias). That's what "cherry picking" a jury system counts on, and our differences are what makes us human.
The whole point of a debate is to present opposite views of a "controversial" subject. If people could choose their raters for their topic, they could cherry pick their "jury," too.
Helium asks us to be objective raters/critics when we rate anonymous, paired articles. No matter how hard we try, our core beliefs, our emotions, and our past personal experiences are going to feed into our ratings.
Raters/criti cs earn gold stars by fairly and objectively rating up the "better" article that offers the "more valuable" information. This requires considered thoughtfulness, which should not be tainted even by subconscious feelings of bias.
Helium's democratic rating system makes the articles ultimately move into their (overall) proper ranks. Based on those rankings, writers are paid according to their stars of recognition.
Our earned rating stars are based on the overall community's idea of which is "better." I do not want to second-guess the computer by trying to match my rate against the majority opinion about a view I disagree with, just to earn a quality rating point. I feel I can better judge the validity of the presentation of views that are similar to my own.
If I were "forced" to rate articles I had a visceral reaction to, I do not think I could be objective. The points often seem unconvincing to me, and I would, even if subconsciously, rate that article lower. If I want to check out "the other side," I'll do it on my own time, not during a rating period, which requires my undivided concentration.
I would also tend to skip a lot more, which would probably affect Helium's overall quality and my gold star ratings.
At present, I find the rating process interesting, and I learn a lot from it. I understand its value to Helium's integrity as a reliable site for quality information, and I feel it's an important job. Before January 2008, Helium only allowed us to rate one article better, and move on to the next. Now, we can rate one article up AND give an editing comment as feedback to the lower-rated writer.
The newer rating system is an improvement for everyone: writers get valuable input and raters/critics get a chance to act as editors. Helium encourages us to rate often, and with considered thought, so the thousands of articles quickly earn their place in the ranks.
I see how much work and time goes into stating a position fairly, objectively, and thoroughly. Debate topics deserve our rating time and effort, and should be judged objectively on their content and presentation, not on the personal view expressed.
My final verdict: Helium should only ask those who agree with the premise to rate that viewpoint - objectively, fairly, and with due consideration.
Learn more about this author, Karon Brandt.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Disagree
Should you rate articles you agree with or disagree with? I believe disagreement would make for more critical thought.
Rating articles that are written with the same viewpoint as your own means you tend to view mechanics more than content at least that's what I find myself doing when I rate articles whose point of view I share.
But when I read articles that go against what I believe, the critique becomes more than mere mechanics and grammar. I read the articles that are presented side by side and treat the competition as one of who can present a stronger case to make me at least consider their viewpoint has merit?'
I look for intelligence, the logical flow of their presentation, and yes, mechanics and grammar. After all, if they can't even spell correctly, or use the proper word for the situation, it doesn't do much for strongly presenting their case. I think this year's campaign has shown just how important presentation is. I may not agree with him, but you have to acknowledge that Obama is an eloquent speaker regardless of the message. What's the real message? That's for another article!
Back to the topic at hand
Yes, it's comfortable to read words that go along with your own views. You can skim the words, nodding your head in agreement as you go. But one thing I've learned in my life is the importance of open discussion. If we truly have the chance to openly discuss our beliefs, even those considered against the grain,' it enables everyone to better understand why others think the way they do. The sharing of ideas is an important catalyst to lasting change, and if you only read those views that cause you to behave like a bobble head doll, then the ideas really haven't been shared in the most beneficial way.
It makes me remember debates in my school days. The toughest debates were those that required me to defend the view I normally opposed. But it forced me to research the other side, get my mind around their thought processes and present it as a valid viewpoint. It helped open my mind to the views of others. Maybe it didn't persuade me to change my own beliefs, but I understood the other side a little better.
So to close, I think reading the articles you disagree with is better. It makes the writer work harder to create an article that is intelligent, it provokes the reader to think and open their mind and it helps us all understand each other. All in all, everyone wins when we give the other viewpoint a chance. Otherwise it becomes just another way of preaching to the converted' and I only enjoy that during Services.
Learn more about this author, Patrice S.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Writing & Rating at Helium
- Should you begin Helium articles by repeating the article's title?
