Literature ("Accuracy and Confidence in Group Judgment" by Sniezek and Henry, 1988) suggests that group judgments formed through discussion are typically higher quality than individual judgments, even when aggregated like votes, for example. Thus it would be good to find some way to surface judgments that have been already been made for re-evaluation, either to confirm that the originally stated judgment was good, to change the judgment to something else, or to encourage discussion on the talk page. This way, the judgments space is an ongoing and living space, not just an unmaintained bucket of data.
Halfak renamed this task from Find way to re-surface judgments for continuous evaluation to Re-surface judgments for continuous evaluation.Feb 26 2019, 10:50 PM
Halfak triaged this task as Low priority.