Re: [jox] Signals _and_ Accept/Reject
- From: Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil anu.edu.au>
- Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:24:56 +1100
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
[Hi Brian, no, you are still being blocked, not sure why, I will repost the error report at the bottom of this message. Thanks for explaining your position, good point about possible reputation costs for those who eschew signals. Cheers, M]
[ StefanMN: Brians' messages appear to be triggering a spamfilter, can you help? Thanks, M]
[BW:]
Hope this one arrives. In full choice the person concerned has the
choice as to whether they want feedback or not. In our paper, Part II,
we argued that authors can choose whether to be reviewed or just
publish, and can also choose if they want community rating feedback or
not.. It would self-correct, as non-reviewed and non-rated papers
probably wouldnt get so much respect, so may not be read so much. My
personal view is that one neednt force, it is just a norm, and it is
better when people can choose, but of course it is also up to the KES
community, if it wants to make it a community contribution requirement
to keep standards. If so, it should be stated clearly when the author
submits that it will be rated, so it is still an author choice, but
bundled with their submit choice. Also the community could make rating a
submission requirement, but allow authors to choose not have commenting.
The general idea of course is as much as possible to share control and
evaluations among the community, but really its up to you.
Brian
----- Original Message -----
From: Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil anu.edu.au>
Date: Thursday, March 18, 2010 7:16 pm
Subject: Re: [jox] Signals _and_ Accept/Reject
To: journal oekonux.org
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
[Brian Whitworth's response was killed by the spam filter, I
think because he sent it from an unregistered address, "taboo
header"? - reposting below, M]
[BW sez:]
Yes, actual control is only needed for heedless donkeys, and
even they
get warning signals before. This is how the world works. If I
look back
at seriously bad things that happened to me, I see that the
world
actually gave me several warnings not to do that (which I
ignored). So
in an adult setting everything should be signals, from people
and from
the community. Only if community signals fail does"security"
need to be
called. In scientific knowledge exchange, honest feedback from
others is
critical to growth. If it is done democratically and
transparently, the
result will be better than letting an elite few control what is
"good",
which can begin well but always soon decays. One has to trust
that
people will be both honest and kind in their contributions, but
there is
no escaping evaluation. No community can afford to give its
citizens a
free lunch, because it doesnt itself get one from the physical
world
around it. How a community rates a product, by "expert" reviewer
representatives or by "market" general vote, is absolute. If it
always
gets it wrong, it will fail regardless. The important thing is
that
everyone is free to contribute, so a community acts how it
really is.
Power "warps" a community. Communities should always give choice
to
their members because the world always gives choice to us.
Giving and
receiving signals is critical to making right choices.
all the best in this endeavor
Brian
[Uh, he seems to be saying that signals are good, which most
agree on, but as to the question of whether having unsignaled
papers will muck up the system, we have to read between the
lines... anyone feel like tea-gazing? ;-)]
----- Original Message -----
From: Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil anu.edu.au>
Date: Thursday, March 18, 2010 7:41 am
Subject: [jox] Signals _and_ Accept/Reject
To: journal oekonux.org
Cc: journal oekonux.org
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
Hi George, all
The hermit awakes! Will sparks fly as they did a year ago? ;-)
@ Brian Whitworth: Brian, what do you think about the below
idea: allowing people to choose between signals (used to be
'ratings') and plain accepted/rejected articles? Would this
introduces a dissonance in the system and an unwanted division
in the articles? Or would it be OK, in your view?
Thanks for advising,
cheers
Mathieu
2. Regarding the *submission process*: although this might
complicate> things a bit in the beginning (for both editorial
team and potential
contributing authors), i agree with the idea of letting submitting
authors decide whether they prefer their submissions to be
evaluated> > according to the accept/reject model or based on
'signals'.> >
X,
g.
[error message below:]
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.4-smerten_69 (2008-01-01) on
server.oekonux.de
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=3.0 required=2.5 tests=BAYES_50,HTML_MESSAGE,
KW_STOCK_SYMBOL,RCVD_IN_SORBS_HTTP,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=no
version=3.2.4-smerten_69
X-Spam-Report:
* 0.0 RCVD_IN_SORBS_HTTP RBL: SORBS: sender is open HTTP proxy server
* [124.108.96.250 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net]
* 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines
* 1.0 KW_STOCK_SYMBOL BODY: Talks about a stock symbol
* 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
* 2.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60%
* [score: 0.4998]
Received: (qmail 21917 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2010 11:13:42 +0100
Received: from n1b.bullet.mail.aue.yahoo.com (124.108.96.250)
by server.oekonux.de with SMTP; 18 Mar 2010 11:13:37 +0100
Received: from [124.108.96.170] by n1.bullet.mail.aue.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Mar 2010 10:13:35 -0000
Received: from [124.108.96.187] by t1.bullet.mail.aue.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Mar 2010 10:13:35 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp102.mail.aue.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Mar 2010 10:13:35 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 563249.83008.bm omp102.mail.aue.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 1216 invoked by uid 1000); 18 Mar 2010 10:13:35 -0000
Received: from 124.108.96.70 by rel103.mail.aue.yahoo.com with SMTP; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 03:13:35 -0700
Received: (qmail 65547 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2010 10:13:35 -0000
Received: from 222-152-76-173.jetstream.xtra.co.nz (bwhitworth 222.152.76.173 with plain)
by smtp101.tnz.mail.aue.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Mar 2010 03:13:34 -0700 PDT
X-Yahoo-SMTP: nF20M1SswBBo8UFf3KquYXiCMUe9qb8qbyyWfwcT2OOzQri1K_0-
X-YMail-OSG: yUxNmVUVM1kDCnjQfFgpJ0.wJL0Cpji31gZio7sOvqygS_qntJwXYyLG4kiAk0jl5xHOzAJeqgHA.34hDPNwrdzVb440kHUNPP9ZBaVBhfgnCbcB2wDXVZzoa8CAjm3EuFBBfvRyhl.XO3uYa7id3Y4VlWA8dStH3vpIpEAix11etx_OT5.dOVrtjrIcHERNv31gY_A0IYas.kkXwiLk1uIE2SPZQZxF1WWTaNq59yIcn03Pbzn__CysttTMWppPSpGL5hjvhyD6TNUDzskYy9NQ
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
Message-ID: <4BA1FCC7.2030708 acm.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:13:27 +1300
From: bwhitworTH <bwhitworth acm.org>
Reply-To: BRIANXW GMAIL.COM
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: journal oekonux.org
Subject: Re: [jox] Signals _and_ Accept/Reject
References: <4B8AB2E7.2060300 irational.org> <12144.1268043083 paulla.merten-home.homelinux.org> <4B96DC29.1040000 irational.org> <fb94fd2f14f21.4b977ae0 anu.edu.au> <324793.75965.qm web37306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5178_1268858513_4BA13E91_5178_40035_1_fbdf95501c65a.4ba1d92c anu.edu.au> <fbc3fab51a31e.4ba27c09 anu.edu.au>
In-Reply-To: <fbc3fab51a31e.4ba27c09 anu.edu.au>
X-Envelope-To: journal oekonux.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
[2 text/html]
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal