[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Invitation to metadata dictionary wiki - meaningfuel.org

• To: Klaus Backert <Klaus.Backert@t...>
• Subject: Re: Invitation to metadata dictionary wiki - meaningfuel.org
• From: sterling <sstouden@t...>
• Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 04:48:45 -0600 (CST)
• Cc: Greg Hunt <greg@f...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <39BA0BDD-B26C-492F-9D05-D68D6C89189B@t...>

crowd data is political. Political is center biased and center is timing 
deterministic. Timing determines resistance/acceptance. 
The variable with crows is the location of center.
sterling 


On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Klaus Backert wrote:

> Hi, Greg,
> 
> Am 29.01.2006 um 00:57 schrieb Greg Hunt:
> 
> > Crowds have different effects on the task.  For one thing, they  
> > average error, not just in the case of jelly beans, but also as a  
> > software project estimation technique (its a bit sad that a  
> > technical mailing list would have picked  the jellybean example).   
> > In this case, a crowd is an expert.
> 
> See below please.
> 
> > Depending on the social structure, a crowd can enforce simple  
> > ideologies, the Wikipedia NPOV (and its associated assumption that  
> > neutrality is possible) is a good example of this, and in that  
> > context they also enforce filtering (see the discussion pages  
> > associated with the Wikipedia article on the Holocaust - there is a  
> > great deal of argument about who is an expert and who is not).  The  
> > experts in that case are assumed to have looked at primary sources  
> > and in some sense have vasluable opinions.  The participants in  
> > that discussion tend to be talking about limited ranges of  
> > secondary sources and they look to me more liked editors with  
> > opinions, than experts themselves.  Perhaps this is another  
> > instance of the crowd averaging error?  Certainly the discussion of  
> > Irving and the other revisionsists reads that way.
> 
> ... really sad, and you are true with your opinion about the  
> participants, I think.
> 
> > In the case of technical topics the quality of the content is  
> > variable and dependent on the editors and editing process, the XML  
> > article is far more comprehensive than the Mainframe entry for  
> > example, which has a few eccentric statements in it (Speed and  
> > Performance), but there is not much debate about the technical  
> > facts, so the averaging process is easier.  The mainframe article  
> > probably looks the way it does because the crowd is smaller.
> >
> > What I hope to get from an expert is fast coherence and quotable  
> > opinions.  The question about the choice of a self-selected group  
> > or the individual expert seems to be whether you want your expert  
> > to be an editor/filter or a creator.  Crowds seem not to create,  
> > but can filter very well within the limits of their social belief  
> > systems (the Wikipedia NPOV for example constrains what can be  
> > said).  An individual expert has a clearer response time.
> >
> > An interesting question is, what happens as the crowd gets smaller  
> > - what is the threshold size for effective debate and filtering?
> >
> > Greg
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> If you would like to look at my posting in answering Vladimir  
> Gapeyev, you will find something about bad experience with crowds I  
> had in my business, and about some causes of the problems (I've  
> learned a lot out of this crashed projects, which I won't discount).  
> Interestingly these have all been project teams with the task to  
> create something (organisation, data, and software).
> 
> May be filtering versus creating makes the difference.
> 
> About the software project estimation technique:
> 
> About 10 years ago, I read about several computer science projects.  
> They found a certain difficulty. Many software experts have had  
> similar or even the same lessons, read the same books, partly talked  
> to each other, used the same techniques, rules, patterns and  
> paradigmes, etc. Because of this the estimates tended to be biased in  
> the same direction in several case studies. These crowds didn't  
> average the error, but on average produced one in the same direction.  
> I think, this again is counter evidence against wisdom of the crowd  
> without a lot of precautions - even when filtering information. And  
> the causes are more social again.
> 
> I hope it's easier today, when we have better access to software  
> experts all over the world.
> 
> Well, I'm not thrilled by this wisdom-of-the-crowd thing. But I'm no  
> opponent. I hope it will work with the metadata dictionary wiki.
> 
> Klaus
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> 
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
> 

• References:
  • Re: Invitation to metadata dictionary wiki - meaningfuel.org
    • From: Klaus Backert <Klaus.Backert@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Invitation to metadata dictionary wiki - meaningfuel.org
• Next by Date: Maybe a newbie question: Awful OO software structure with SAX!?
• Previous by thread: Re: Invitation to metadata dictionary wiki - meaningfuel.org
• Next by thread: RE: Invitation to metadata dictionary wiki - meaningfuel.org
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread