Topic on Talk:JADE/Implementations

For example, if a judgment includes both "damaging: true" and "goodfaith: true", and a comment, should we keep that information together where ever it's used? I feel like the comment is pertinent to both labels and it wouldn't make sense to either humans or machines to look at only one label and the comment.

I was thinking that this means we shouldn't encourage support/oppose votes, but now I see that users might still want to do that, since they can simply oppose a judgment if they disagree with one of the schema-scores, and make a new proposal with their alternative scores.

It makes sense to machines to look at just one label. That's how ORES handles "damaging" and "goodfaith" now. I think that the "edit"/"revision"/"users"/etc. views offer a nice way to group these kind of things together. In many contexts, we'll likely receive a judgement that does not account for all schemas in a view. (E.g. maybe huggle users only note whether or not something is "damaging", but don't want to comment on "goodfaith" status).

It seems like you are advocating that the schema is not divisible. That would mean we wouldn't be able to add anything to a view (e.g. adding "edit_type" to the "edit" view along side "damaging" and "goodfaith") because the comment would not apply to "edit_type" and that would make the data itself invalid.

Re. "support/oppose votes", I agree that it makes sense to be able to express a situation like "Everyone agrees that this is damaging, but there's disagreement about whether or not the edit was saved in goodfaith. Still the current consensus is that it was saved in goodfaith."