[cap-talk] Wiki with belief functions (was: Wikiwith ReputationTracking)

smagi at naasking.homeip.net smagi at naasking.homeip.net
Mon Dec 26 01:14:38 EST 2005

> Sandro Magi wrote:
>> Thus, I think if there's a division of belief, then you must
>> divide the
>> information. Two articles reflecting each view, with the
>> oversight and
>> approval of the respective camps is a fair solution. A joint article
>> linked from both can present the contrast/debate between them, so the
>> contention can be limited to areas where the topics intersect. These
>> intersection articles should be much smaller in number and
>> thus can be
>> arbitrated by a third party if necessary.
> An interesting mechanism that Wikipedia doesn't currently support.

Well, it doesn't support it in the sense that wikipedians aren't
organizing the material in this fashion, not that it isn't possible to do
so. There have been recent announcements about implementing edit controls
on pages however, so stay tuned. :-)

> The real problem is not with one side updating its own material.  It's
> updating the other side's.  Wikipedia doesn't control who can update
> what.  That's a fundamental part of the model.  You could always change
> things so that only the originator can update some material, but then
> you'd have a very different model.

I agree, but I'm not suggesting any such change; the arbitrator is simply
someone with an extremely good "reputation", and his control over the
contentious page is in the form of typical punishment when one's edit is
rolled back. He is "arbitrator" merely by community policy; it's not
enforced by some special priviledges he holds.

I'm basing my argument on the premise that the "evolution" camp would be
more interested in their own article than in the "intelligent design"
article. Thus, assuming an initial steady-state condition, the
overwhelming weight of votes in each camp serves to "punish" any "rival"
who edits an article "unfairly".

I agree that "edit wars" are possible, even in this scheme, but they are
discouraged because of their deleterious effects to oneself. Who will want
to victimize themselves to start an edit war?


More information about the cap-talk mailing list