The other side of having articles vetted by human moderation.
Although I am pro human moderation before publication, there is a down side. Especially when moderators are also contributors.
On Triond, our work is virtually NOT moderated. There was an extremely glitchy piece of software that bounced any article which quoted authorities. This was rather funny, especially when the software would find the exact place from which quoted, although you did publish that authority in your article.
On Wikinut nothing is published until it is vetted by a Moderator, whose name appears at the bottom of your article. In this way you know who it was who gave or denied you that Star.
Star Pages on Wikinut are what ‘Hot content‘ is to Triond. The difference is that Star Pages change every day where Hot Content festers, day after week after month after year.
The Moderators are the only arbiters of Star Pages. So that guy who doesn’t like or like your topic or like your opinion withholds that Star. So an article with perfect grammar, dealing with an incredibly interesting topic, with pictures, back links, bold; all the ‘ingredients’ to create a Star Page are nothing but a waste of your time. For the Mod doesn’t like you, or your topic, or your opinion, so passes the article into oblivion.
On the other hand, as the Mods are also Contributors you’ll see crap upon crap filling the Star Pages. Written by a Moderator who practices the one hand washes the other, it’s rare anything from the keyboard of a Mod doesn’t get a star.
So timed, that almost every day one will find at least two from this Mod, two from that Mod. For they practice the ‘hand washing.’
Some of the stuff may be good, but most isn’t. Readers ignore it, a few might read it and wax lyrical, especially those who expect that very Mod to read their work and give them a Star.
As we know, anything that can be corrupted, will be corrupted.