I dont think it has been done before. What we need is an open source decentralized system of certification where each certificate will be a wiki page, will have a version, and will be able to be assigned by everyone to anyone. That will make any journal or university degree obsolete. (We'd just have professors,not the university, certifying their students.)
I also dont think that there is an easier alternative that solves the long lasting battle between experts and the rest.
2012/10/28 Stirling Newberry stirling.newberry@xigenics.net
Empirically, that does not have a high probability of success.
On Oct 27, 2012, at 8:25 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis wrote:
Please, enlighten me.
2012/10/28 Stirling Newberry stirling.newberry@xigenics.net
Your post is self-contradictory.
On Oct 27, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis wrote:
1)I don't think that google results have any credibility at all. 2)The basis of a wiki is the open source license of its contents. That
is
why it is a collaboration.
Consensus is core to what credibility wikipedia has, because it is
much
harder to get a bot net to generate it than to generate links. It means that anyone who writes has at least consented to have others check
their
work.
That is incorrect. It is much more difficult because each page is
checked
by users. In the same way, rating an article will be done by users and
the
network of trust will be dynamic. If a user is providing bad
information,
he will be discarded manually from users.
That's categorically incorrect. Consensus is a rational preference,
you
would ban it, there for violating admissibility. It will also run into transitivity issues quickly, as people will set up link farms to point
to
their version.
Care to explain that?
Whose preference is rational? rational preference <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_(economics)#Applications_to_theories...
Admissibity of what? Admissible_rulehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admissible_rule
Again transitivity of whose preferences?
I guess that you are trying to say that through consensus , we end up
in
some sort of parreto efficient state, ie that the consensus "game"
forces
articles to be good enough.
I dont propose to ban consensus, only to allow users to have many consensus. I think that people will continue to strive for acceptance
and
consensus, especially since each user will have some sort of ranking. I admit that I havent really thought of this from a game theoretic
point
of
view. Stackoverflow, mathoverflow 's ranking system seems to have given a
good
incentice to authors, though. It all depends on the trust metric.
It is though universally understood that this consensus "game" doesnt provide good enough results for academic research.
2012/10/28 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
On 28 October 2012 00:12, Stirling Newberry stirling.newberry@xigenics.net wrote:
On Oct 27, 2012, at 6:33 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis wrote:
> I know that this is very different from what wikipedia has been
known
to be
> and it is understandable that this huge change can only happen from
outside
> of wikipedia.
This project has been started, it is called "the world wide web."
Indeed. If Wikipedia were not an improvement over the first ten Google hits, it wouldn't exist.
- d.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
Sincerely yours,
Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
Sincerely yours,
Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l