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
that anyone who writes has at least consented to have others check their
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
Care to explain that?
Whose preference is rational? rational preference
Admissibity of what?
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
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(a)gmail.com>
On 28 October 2012 00:12, Stirling Newberry
On Oct 27, 2012, at 6:33 PM, Apostolis
> I know that this is very different from what
wikipedia has been known
> and it is understandable that this huge
change can only happen from
> 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.
Wikipedia-l mailing list