Lists Home |
Date Index |
I know. I didn't say it doesn't work for some purposes.
It does. I simply said it is a chimp ontology. You
can have a bonobo ontology too, but you emphasized the
popular model of Darwinian systems based on competition
and elimination (aka, Spencer's Survival of the Fittest
which was originally a business model but which on reading
Origin of the Species, he applied to evolution of biological
systems). Actually, biological evolution is not 'red tooth
and claw'. Humans don't evolve that way. It is
possible that the best technologies don't either.
Do you understand 'founder effect'? I say this only to
suggest that you may find a different set of 'memes' to
be more effective in directing your design, and the
evolution of your community.
If the crowds are wise, then Hamas is the best leadership
for the Palestinians and God exists because in the first
case, the people have chosen, and in the second case,
the majority believe. Time will tell for the first, but
no amount of time proves the latter. It is an issue of
faith, but take heart, because it is believed by very
large groups who on faith, kill or don't based on it.
Leadership is the difference.
From: ROR [mailto:email@example.com]
There are some very successful technologies out there that are
essentially powered by the people. PageRank is a great example of that.
> Which makes it suitable for picking the contestants on
> American Idol but probably not for picking tools to
> use in surgery.
> The problem of the 'wisdom of crowds' is knowing
> 'crowds of what?' in advance of applying the wisdom.
> It's not simply a matter of merging but also of
> knowing what levels of abstract to concrete terms
> a merged term belongs to.
> object -> vehicle -> car
> merge: transportation
> The problem of Darwinian systems is that some
> competitors agree not to compete and also to
> eliminate the third party, aka, market fixing.
> That is the chimp way. You are building a
> chimp ontology.
> That's fine. Chimps need them.
> From: ROR [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Hi Jonathan,
> Good questions! I think the best way to look at the meaningfuel wiki
> is as some sort of "natural selection metadata". Some terms will
> vanish after two weeks, other more adequate terms, will live
> Similar terms (i.e. from different ontologies) will compete, and
> too, only the most adequate ones will survive.
> >From time to time we plan to produce a release of the dictionary,
> which will only contain those terms that have reached sufficient
> stability and maturity.