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_of_utility> > Admissibity of what? > Admissible_rule<http://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 <[email protected]> > >> On 28 October 2012 00:12, Stirling Newberry >> <[email protected]> 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 >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l >> > > > > -- > > > Sincerely yours, > > Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis > _______________________________________________ > Wikipedia-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
