I'm going to temporarily ignore my doubts about accurate assessments to try
to get my initial question answered yet again.
Why wouldn't it be to my advantage to exaggerate my contributions?
----- Original Message -----
From: YKY (Yan King Yin)
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] AGI Consortium
On 6/10/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> YKY> Think: if you have contributed something, it'd be in your best
interest to give accurate estimates rather than exaggerate or depreciate them
>
> MW> Why wouldn't it be to my advantage to exaggerate my contributions?
>
> YKY> But your peers in the network won't allow that.
>
> MW> That is an entirely different argument (and one that I'm not willing to
concede since I don't believe that the network can accurately prevent
exaggeration without accidentally short-changing some decent percentage of
contributors). Your statement was "if you have contributed something, it'd be
in your best interest to give accurate estimates rather than exaggerate or
depreciate them". I would like an explanation of why part of your statement is
true.
YKY> Sorry it's a bit complicated...
A) First, there's the problem of estimating how much a particular piece of
contribution is worth. As I've explained before, this will be done by
self-rating + optional peer-rating + etc... and I think it will give
acceptable estimates on average.
You said: "I don't believe that the network can accurately prevent
exaggeration without accidentally short-changing some decent percentage of
contributors ". I don't understand what exactly you mean by "short-changing".
Can you give an example? Are you saying that a decent percentage of
contributors would recieve *systematically incorrect* crediting? I wonder why.
B) Secondly, there's the problem of someone wanting to "check out" while
taking some other members' contributions along (note: one is always free to use
one's *own* ideas / contributions elsewhere). In that case we need to
estimate how much shares the new project owes the consortium. Maybe we'll rely
on the managerial board for that. But the most important part is (A).
My statement that you questioned above, is re estimating X% = $C / $C + $c,
which is my earlier idea for solving (B). But it's not essential to the
scheme, and it seems overly complicated, so we may simply ask the managerial
board to make an estimate instead.
YKY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e
