Please, enlighten me. 2012/10/28 Stirling Newberry <[email protected]>
> 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 > -- Sincerely yours, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
