(, as well as literary criticism in general, appears along with literary magazines. The first such magazine in Russia was "Monthly writings for the benefit and amusement of employees"
)
Review is a genre of journalism, as well as scientific and artistic criticism. The review gives the right to evaluate the work done by a person who needs to edit and correct his work. The review informs about the new work, contains its brief analysis and evaluation [1]. Translated from Latin, "recensio" means "viewing, reporting, evaluating, reviewing something." A review is a genre based on a review (primarily critical) about a work of fiction, art, science, journalism, etc. [2]
In the first lines of this review, I welcome the proposal made in the publication "«.
The author rightly noted the high role of reviews in modern culture, while in fact it seems that the author is “breaking through an open door” - the rules of Habr do not prohibit publishing in the form of reviews of publications already made earlier. Indeed, the mentioned publication has already been reviewed in another :
In addition to the hottest article on Habr - The Karmic Curse of Habr, and I want reviews on Habr.
At first I wanted to add a comment, but still there is not enough commentary to describe the situation and details. The result was a short note. Maybe someone will be interested.
True, judging by the reader's assessment, the mentioned note, unlike the “hot articles” mentioned in it, failed, and the blacklist proposed in it did not arouse the enthusiasm of the Habra community. But back to the article about reviews.
It should be noted right away that at the moment (6 days have passed), more than half (58.3%) of the five hundred voters supported the idea of Habro reviews. I think this is not accidental: the author clearly outlined the reasons for the need for peer review. In my opinion, the main arguments sounded quite convincing:
lacking a critical eye. In general, it can be found in the comments. But they have a significant disadvantage - an alternative opinion is lost in the general mass, it turns out to be fragmented and brings more "risks" to its author than benefits.
But reviews allow you to convey far more than just a critical view. It's completely normal to get a positive review from an eminent author. What makes your work valuable both for you personally and for others.
I think it is obvious that a verbal assessment will provide more useful information than anonymous pluses and minuses. Let's say at work my boss instructed me to urgently implement some kind of logarithm algorithm for a mobile device, but I have never dealt with such algorithms. I go to google. He will throw me a link to Habr in the top. I'll take a look at this article. If the advantages mentioned there outweigh, then I will do as recommended in the peer-reviewed article, but maybe the reviewer will list several other algorithms that are much better than the proposed one in most parameters. Then I'll order a Google search for these algorithms. In any case, what you need. In any case, both positive and negative reviews will increase the value of information on Habré.
Let me draw an analogy with Wikipedia. It is well known that not everything that is written on Wikipedia needs to be believed. When I read an article on a topic where I am an expert, I usually don’t have problems “what to believe”. But what if I read a Wiki article on a topic unknown to me? Then, after reading the article, I open the discussion page. Not always, but often, it helps me make adjustments. In Wikipedia, unlike Habr, discussions are structured. In Habré, structuring comments like in Wiki is unlikely to succeed and is hardly necessary. I think the reviews will help more.
I wrote above that it seems that the author of the article under review is breaking through an open door. In fact, this is only an illusion - the author rightly noted the need for a mechanism for automatically adding a link to a review from a peer-reviewed article.
In addition, he wrote:
I am sure that now many people have a question - why didn’t you write to the administration? Wrote. And I got two completely opposite answers. In the first one they promised me to definitely consider the proposal, in the second they frankly said that there were more important things to do.
I think that I will not violate the Rules if I call on the Community to write reviews of what I liked and did not like right now, without waiting for administrative decisions.
Indicate in the title or subtitle that this is a review. Provide a link to the article under review. And in the comments to that article write a comment:
WROTE A REVIEW (link)
I encourage authors of original articles and translators to respond to such comments and include this link at the end of the article.
I hope that if this practice takes root, then the Habr administration will make those for it. support.
As for karma, from the discussion of which the articles mentioned here arose. I would venture to suggest that with the advent of new mechanisms, such as peer review, the role of karma will decrease until it becomes clear to everyone that the mechanism of karma is completely outdated and no longer needed. (Dreaming is not harmful).
Source: habr.com