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 <[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 _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
