On 25 Jul 2003 at 14:16, Bill Seitz wrote: (01)
> A couple random notes for now:
>
> * an interesting piece I read recently about scientific vs humanities
> cultures:
> http://webseitz.fluxent.com/wiki/z2003-07-01-ScientificCulture
There's a snag with Peer Review systems like this, in that the clique
is often small, and sound but iconoclastic ideas (think of Einstein)
can simply fail to get a grip. As theorised by Thomas Kuhn with
'paradigm shifts', of course.
The difference I would ascribe to the humanities is that there is a
broader spectrum of what is acceptable and the work often requires
less resources (How many historians need to build a plasma torus to
prove a point?). My experience of the humanities is that there is
more discussion and more individual dissension, but the terrain is
richer for it.
Science is more restricted by what matter/energy/money does or does
not permit. (02)
This brings to mind an issue with review systems - often you need to
know _why_ someone gave something a certain score. It often isn't
enough to know that the person reviewing is your friend/colleague... (03)
>
> * looking at Advogato's network-flow model might be interesting. There
> are definitely some big definition problems there, which have never
> been corrected - http://webseitz.fluxent.com/wiki/AdvoGato
>
... view that seems reinforced by the article on 'gnashing of teeth'
via Bill's link. Trust metrics are just maths, they don't control how
people play. (04)
> * DavidBrin's DisputationArena idea smells related -
> http://webseitz.fluxent.com/wiki/DisputationArena
This I like, because it posits the Internet as a zone of accelerated creative
discussion.
But it doesn't really solve the problem of how to find information or
new ideas. (05)
>
> The big question which drives the experiment: what's the point?
>
> GoalA, draft0: given the explosion in the quantity of online content
> (AOL blogs), how find ideas worth your time, outside your existing
> CreativeNetwork and SocialNetwork?
How does one define 'interesting idea'?
But one lateral approach is just to suggest giving people more time
to play and roam.
Or Brainstorm-o-matic software that throws random phrases and
keywords together, or group word association games, all with a 'Go
google' button, maybe. (06)
>
> GoalB, draft0: how do we improve the definition of goals/desires, to
> improve the likelihood of them being achieved (meta-question - /do/
> definition improvements increase likelihood?)
Collaborative critique will improve definition, but that won't
necessarily improve likelihood. Likelihood requires adequate (group)
willpower and time relative to the size of the task.
That suggests that willpower is prior.
And an attractor to focus it is second.
Then definition will occur with participation. (07)
BlueOxen was initially a cunning bootstrap-attractor with positive
feedback in which to pool willpower and attractors. :) (08)
>
> GoalC, draft0: given an agreed-to well-defined goal, evaluate a given
> design for achieving the goal, so that (subgoala) better designs can
> get more attention than crummy ones, and (subgoalb) all designs can be
> improved through feedback.
I think it's hard to predict entirely in advance of building anything
what is likely to be the best design. So a practical recipe would be:
Pull an attractor out of the pool. Collaboratively build stuff. Test
it. Iterate till it's good. Throw result back into pool.
It's the process of how to tackle stuff being thrown back into the
pool that is crucial, imho. Nothing should be discarded and people
need time to study things for signs of potential value.
I'm against things being discarded (even aborted projects) because I
frequently find myself coding down a blind alley on one project, only
to find that code being useful for something else later.
And great inventors are always supposed to be ahead of their time. :) (09)
What would help with open source projects is synopsis breakdowns of
the solution structure. That maybe requires a new aspect of
documentation - more in line with storytelling in respect of
function, perhaps. (010)
>
> Peter P. Jones wrote:
> > On 24 Jul 2003 at 23:16, Eugene Eric Kim wrote:
> >
> >
> >>As I reported on the yak@collab list, we had an informal gathering
> >>of folks in the Bay Area, and one of the topics of discussion was
> >>Brian Lincoln's idea for grass roots peer review.
> >>
> >> http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/yak/2003-07/msg00159.html#nid06
> >>
> >
> > Looking at the pattern for GrassRootsPeerReview I'm struck by the
> > notion that TellAFriend is not the same as FOAF. In my view, in this
> > respect FOAF is back-to-front in that I'm the one who declares who
> > my friends are (unless I've totally misunderstood how FOAF works in
> > that respect). I think that direction is incorrect for TellAFriend
> > reviewing.
> >
> > Perhaps what's needed is a way for folks to register themselves as a
> > friend with my friends-node if they wish, anonymously if I allow
> > that option, and then every time I stick ratings on something and
> > post it into the network they get an indication that I've done that,
> > and it stacks up in their personal view of matters.
> >
> > ?
> >
>
> --
> This message is archived at:
>
> http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=tools-yak&i=3F217
> 3E8.4030808@fluxent.com
>
> (011)
--
This message is archived at: (012)
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=tools-yak&i=3F22DE14.11069.6748C7@localhost (013)
|