Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedWho should rate Helium debate articles:Those who agree or disagree?
Results so far:
| Agree | 61% | 376 votes | Total: 619 votes | |
| Disagree | 39% | 243 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
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.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Writing & Rating at Helium
- Should you begin Helium articles by repeating the article's title?
