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% | 375 votes | Total: 617 votes | |
| Disagree | 39% | 242 votes |
Agree
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesA debate is a formal presentation of a controversial subject. Opposing sides of the issue under discussion give their reason why they are "for" or "against" the argument. When it is time to rate articles written to a debate, what is the criteria for determining who the judges will be? Some believe the articles should be rated by those who concur, while others insist the disputing segement of raters will give a more objective opinion. Another point of view feels 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 this capacity, we are raters, not debaters. It is our job to decide which article more accurately fulfills Helium writing standards. We are in a better position to focus on our mission if we rate debate articles on the side we agree with, in order to insure we 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 misrepresent 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, I must conclude without qualification or reservation, having the "same side" individuals rate articles mirroring 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
Helium users should be asked to rate articles for the side with which they disagree instead of the one with which they agree. Debate articles are different than other Helium articles in that they must present not only a well-researched, written, and edited piece, but also a coherent and convincing argument for their side. The ranking for debate articles, therefore, must place considerable weight on the nature and success of the argument, perhaps even more weight than on the article's style and technical details. The point of a debate, after all, is to convince others that your side is right, not merely to share ideas with people who already agree with you.
But if raters already agree with a debate article's argument, it is difficult for them to judge which article would be better at convincing others.They are, therefore. more likely to rank articles based on their style and tone, or to rate an argument they personally like higher regardless of how convincingly the article's author argued their points.
If Helium users rated articles for the side of the debate with which they disagreed, they would be better able to judge the merits of the arguments presented. They could rank articles based on how well they explained their opponents' position and perhaps even led them to reconsider their own views.
If Helium users were asked to rank articles for the opposing side of the debate, their strategies for writing good debate articles might change. They would have to demonstrate a better understanding of the opposing side's arguments, as rankers from the other side of the debate would be quick to recognize straw men and other logical fallacies. They would also have to gear their arguments towards convincing someone who disagrees with their position. Writers would no longer be able to count on a clever style or the sympathy of people already on their side to get them higher rankings; instead, they would have to spend time crafting a good argument, one concise enough to hold the attention of someone who disagrees with their premise, but one which demonstrates a full understanding of both sides of the debate.
One potential problem would be that raters may not have enough knowledge of the opposing side of the debate. They may not be able to tell a good argument from a bad one if, for example, they did not know which article presented factual information and which was not well-researched. However, Helium already allows users to skip articles if they do not know enough about the topic to rate them well; this tool could be used for debate articles as well.
This potential problem would not overshadow the benefits of forcing the writers of debate articles to stop preaching to the choir and start writing concise and persuasive arguments geared towards the opposing side of the debate.
Learn more about this author, Amelia Hill.
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?
