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