Review of the desire for habra reviews

(The review , as well as literary criticism as a whole, appears along with literary magazines. The first such journal in Russia was “Monthly Works, Employees Useful and Amusing”

Source )

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 in need of editing and updating his work. The review informs about the new work, contains its brief analysis and assessment [1]. Translated from Latin, “recensio” means “viewing, posting, rating, reviewing something.” Review is a genre, the basis of which is a review (primarily critical) about a work of fiction, art, science, journalism, etc. [2]

Wikipedia

In the first lines of this review, I welcome the proposal made in the publication " I Want Habr Reviews ".



The author rightly noted the high role of reviews in modern culture, while in fact it seems that the author is "breaking through the open door" - Habr’s rules do not prohibit publishing in the form of reviews of previously published publications. And indeed, a review in another publication has already been heard on the mentioned publication :

In addition to the hottest article on Habré - The Habré Karmic Curse, and I Want Habr Review.



At first I wanted to add a comment, but still, to describe the situation and details, there is not enough comment. As a result, a short note was born. Maybe someone will be interested.

True, judging by the readers' assessment, the mentioned article, unlike the “hot articles” mentioned in it, failed, and the blacklist proposed in it did not arouse the enthusiasm of the Habr community. But back to the article about reviews.



It is immediately worth noting that at the moment (6 days have passed) more than half (58.3%) of the five hundred voters have supported the idea of ​​Habro reviews. I think this is not accidental: the author clearly stated the reasons for the need for review. In my opinion, the main arguments were rather convincing:

lacks a critical eye. In general, it can be found in the comments. But they have a significant minus - the alternative opinion is lost in the general mass, it turns out to be fragmented and brings more “risks” to its author rather than benefit.

But reviews allow us to convey not only a critical look. It is perfectly normal to receive a positive review from a distinguished 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 pros and cons. Suppose, at work, the boss instructed me to urgently implement some kind of logarithm algorithm for a mobile device, but I have never dealt with such algorithms. I’m climbing into Google. He will throw a link to Habr in my top. I will look at the review of 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 ones in most parameters. Then I will 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.



I will draw an analogy with Wikipedia. It is well known that not everything that is written on Wikipedia needs to be trusted. When I read an article on the topic where I am a specialist, I usually don’t have problems with “what to believe”. But what if I read a Wiki article on an unknown topic? Then, after reading the article, I open the discussion page. Not always, but often, it helps me make adjustments. On Wikipedia, unlike Habr, discussions are structured. In Habré, it is unlikely that it will be possible to structure comments as in Wiki and it is hardly necessary. I think that reviews will help more.



I wrote above that the author of the peer-reviewed article seems to be breaking through the open door. In reality, this is just a trick - the author rightly noted the need for a mechanism to automatically add a link to a review from a recited article.



He also wrote:

I am sure that now many have a question - why didn’t you write to the administration? I wrote. And he received two completely opposite answers. In the first, they promised me to consider the proposal, in the second they frankly said that there are more important matters.

I think that I will not break the Rules, if I call on the Community now, without waiting for administrative decisions, write reviews on what I liked and did not like.

Indicate in the title or subheading that this is a review. Provide a link to the article under review. And in the comments to that article write a comment:



WRITTEN A REVIEW (link)



I urge authors of source 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, the Habr administration will do 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 decline until it becomes clear to everyone that the mechanism of karma is completely outdated and no longer needed. (Dreaming is not harmful).