(from elsewhere) === Questions I agree that the problem exists (and frustrates m

(from elsewhere)

===

Questions

I agree that the problem exists (and frustrates me daily), and I want a solution to the problem, but I’ve been in this (tech) business a long time (four decades) – and the literature (evidence) is pretty clear, on what works and doesn’t work, and why it doesn’t work. (Starting with HP’s and USG’s most interesting research).

I hope this is digestible. If not ask and I’ll explain. (edited)

1 – Technology vs Application. I don’t understand this strategy. History says that prototype solutions are more important than the standards embedded in them. Otherwise, the kind of person that develops a solution and the kind of work they produce tends to rapid failure, while content creators have no interest in the platform investment. (Conflicting incentives.) Content producers and developers have opposing interests. So I don’t get this strategy unless the result is a platform. And I’ve read your posts so far (that I can find) I just don’t get it.

2 – The Market problem of Knowledge Supply. The problem with wiki as with all KB’s, as with any democratic (market) system, is that (a) transaction costs are high without some incentive (b) it drives to the lowest common denominator of the demographic that is interested in the content (knowledge product), and (c) that NPOV doesn’t demonstrably exist outside of a narrow range of the physical sciences, and (cd that humans demand empathic (occult), rational (philosophical), and empirical (scientific and judicial) solutions based upon their personality, intelligence, and education. … This market functions as a game where contributors and editors gain signal value (status, self-worth, entertainment), but that the truth (parsimony) is in conflict (as always) … wiki, facebook, google, twitter, and the hundreds of tech, biz and gov’t KB’s I’ve seen, all tend toward market maximums (limiting disapproval rather than merit) until like all human systems they face the innovator’s dilemma (shocks) and fail. Which is what I assume you’re up to correct. The question is, how to correct it?

3 – The Consumer Problem of Knowledge Demand. My understanding of the current problem of information is that while referents (concepts) evolve toward parsimony (uniqueness, ratio-empirical-operational, scientific explanation), there are only three dimensions to differences: (a) moral (equalitarian-herd/consumptive/using-undermining, individual/productive/using-exchange, hierarchical-pack/conservative/using-force), (b) Group, Culture, Civilizational Value: there are only so many means of mindfulness, including history, myths, rituals, practices, and entire religions but people (strangely to me and man others) very, very, much depend upon them and have zero tolerance for disputation of them; and (c) a spectrum of arguments (opinions) from the empathic to the purely mathematical. And while these two tend to overlap, decidability (regardless of opinion) increase along that spectrum

4 – The Incentive Problem: Curated knowledge bases always produce superior results, not because of the curators, but because the reward ‘game’ exists (status, self-image, entertainment, socialization), but there is no standard of curation by the two dimensions of differences in supply and demand. There can be and that’s the game we all want to play. In other words, the competition between our frames of reference is what is most interesting, not the SUPPRESSION of competition between our frames of reference.

5 – Gamification: So why not create a ‘game’ around established concepts (index) with competing (a) moral-political, (b) national-cultural, and (c) form of persuasive narrative, and foster resolution of conflict between dimensions rather than attempt the impossible NPOV on one end, or to create low-value disparate expensive, and low-game-value individual solutions? Why not give everyone a voice, but referee categorizations of the three dimensions of the argument? this has the added benefit of creating a worldwide framework for mutual understanding, rather than monopoly authoritarianism (wiki) or your plan for market anarchism (Which I’m almost certain can’t succeed).

If this makes any sense I’ll work on it. I did work on it in around ’09-’10. If it doesn’t then I won’t. I have plenty of other work to do.

-cheers (edited)