Bryan Bishop wrote:
On Saturday 10 November 2007 14:10, Charles D Hixson wrote:
Bryan Bishop wrote:
On Saturday 10 November 2007 13:40, Charles D Hixson wrote:
OTOH, to make a go of this would require several people willing to
dedicate a lot of time consistently over a long duration.
A good start might be a few bibliographies.
http://liinwww.ira.uka.de/bibliography/
- Bryan
Perhaps you could elaborate? I can see how those contributing to the
proposed wiki who also had access to a comprehensive math&comp-sci
library might find that useful, but I don't see it as a good way to
start.
Bibliography + paper archive, then.
http://arxiv.org/ (perhaps we need one for AGI)
It seems to me that better way would be to put up a few pages with
(snip) Yes- that too would be useful.
create. For this kind of a wiki reliability is probably crucial, so
Or deadly considering the majority of AI reputation comes from "I
*think* that guy over there, the one in the corner, might be doing
something interesting."
- Bryan
Reputation in *this* context means a numeric score that is attached to
the user account at the wiki. How it gets modified is crucial, but it
must be seen as fair by the user community. Everybody (except the
founders & sysAdmins) should start equal. A decent system is to start
everyone at 0.1 and have all scores range between (1, 0) .. a doubly
open interval. At discrete steps along the way new moderation
capabilities should become available. If your score drops much below
0.1, your account becomes deactivated.
It seems to me that a good system would increase the score for every
article posted and accepted...but it seems dubious that all postings
should be considered equal. Perhaps individual pages could be voted on,
and that vote used to weigh the delta to the account. There should also
be a bonus for continued participation, at even the reader level. Etc.
LOTS of details.
Also, some systems have proven vulnerable to manipulation via the
creation of large numbers of "throwaway" accounts. This would need to
be guarded against. (This is part of the rationale for "increased
weight for continued *active* participation, at even the reader level".
Dormant accounts should not accrue status, and neither should
hyperactive accounts.)
OTOH, considering the purpose of this wiki, perhaps there should be a
section which is open for "bots", and in this section "hyperactive"
might well have a very different meaning.
If you're planning on implementing this, these are just some ideas to
think about. Personally I've never administered a wiki, and don't have
access to a reasonable host if I wanted to. Also, I don't know Perl
(though I understand that some are written in Python or Ruby).
-----
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=8660244&id_secret=63999495-e194e4
