Am I crazy?

[Digger3000]

Sorry, but I just have to know. Ok, imagine two websites: Site A and Site B. Both are TV database websites that store things like cast, crew, and episodes. Users of both websites can add, edit, and delete information by submitting it and have it go through a moderation system. These contributions give you points for that show, and if you get enough points you can be the editor, meaning you can bypass moderation. Here are the differences:

Site A:

1. To edit a certain piece of information, you would click "Edit" next to it.

2. You get from 2-6 points for each contribution.

3. To be the editor for a show, you need to gain 100 points for that show.

4. Any user can add, edit, or delete information.

Site B:

1. To edit a certain piece of information, you would click "Edit Info." Then it asks what you want to do and you select "edit existing information" and click submit. Then you have to pick which season of the show you want to edit and click submit. Then you have to select which episode you want to edit and click submit.

2. You get from .1-1 points for each contribution.

3. To be the editor show, you need 40 points overall, even if it's for a different show.

4. Users can only add information (and edit some types.) This is to prevent people from deleting things that shouldn't be deleted or making inaccurate edits. Even though this wouldn't be a problem because contributions have to be moderated anyway.

Please give me an objective opinion on which of these sounds better.

[vinyl-junkie]

Except for the points calculation, I don't see a whole lot of difference between these two models. Seems like a wiki will do what both of these do, and and would be a better way of running it. If I had to choose between the two though, I would choose the first because it wouldn't be an "add info only" model. Sometimes information is incorrect, and really needs to be edited or deleted, so model #1 is the better of the two in that regard.

[Digger3000]

Does it make any sense to say the purpose of not letting regular users edit/delete is to prevent incorrect information when there is a moderation system?

[vinyl-junkie]

Does it make any sense to say the purpose of not letting regular users edit/delete is to prevent incorrect information when there is a moderation system?
Not really. You're making the assumption that the super user/site owner knows absolutely everything about those TV shows for which regular users are entering data. Perhaps they know some trivia about those shows that not everyone would. I see moderation as more of a means to prevent spam than to prevent incorrect information from being entered.

[Digger3000]

Well the editor for the show does the moderation for the show.

[Spookster]

You're crazy.

[Digger3000]

I know, but am I crazy about this?