Re: Sort it

I am mostly talking about a
f2f<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friend-to-friend> network.
Users can be discarded locally, ie again no need for consesus. I hope this
is my self-contradiction.
The only close thing that exists right now that is used for things other
than file sharing is ripple<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripple_monetary_system>
 .

2012/10/28 Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis <[email protected]>

> 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
>
>
>


-- 


Sincerely yours,

     Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis