[onhn]

"You can upload your research and publish it on the open web. Members of the community will be able to vote on your research to raise its visibility."

Oh dear.

[Taek]

How would you set it up? The decentralized world doesn't really have a great system for curation at this point (unless you can point to a counterexample!), and so I'm in favor of any sort of playing around with decentralized voting/curation until we find something that seems to be working well.

[SkyMarshal]

Start from the objective of first do no harm. Voting systems may eventually be gamed to distort results, so eliminate the voting system. Instead rely on ad-hoc personal networks to disseminate signal about quality papers out-of-band. Don’t assume you have to systematize everything.

[jamescampbell]

Voting (as was bore out in many examples including digg.com and elsewhere) becomes a mob rule situation and variation of tyranny of the commons without a novelty algorithm in addition to total votes. If you just go by totals, it will be easily gamified and rendered useless as a metric.

[onhn]

The standard and most effective form of curation in science is the reference list at the end of a paper.

But usually you just read everything that is relevant to your research interests from the daily arxiv posting.

[f0e4c2f7]

A perfect system? No, but think about how people must have felt about Wikipedia on launch.

Love this idea.

[NmAmDa]

Actually I don't think science has democratic nature. Yes we do somehow do that as a theory would still need to be accepted widely. But in reality one person can have the correct idea while all others disagree. Still this person is doing it right.

[gambler]

Using Wikipedia as an example of a seemingly naïve idea that was ultimately proven to work is a pretty bad argument that completely ignores how Wikipedia operates at the moment.

It's routinely used for propagating smears:

https://odysee.com/@AlisonMorrow:6/how-wikipedia-decides-if-...

Even one of its co-founders says it's failing as an accurate source of information:

https://odysee.com/@TimcastIRL:8/former-founder-of-wikipedia...

Just like Jaron Lanier predicted in 2006:

https://www.edge.org/conversation/jaron_lanier-digital-maois...

I never understood why so many technologists vehemently defend a website that was obviously prone to a form of "regulatory capture" and groupthink.

[rglover]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA0l1JXhLaI&t=19s

[baby]

Sounds amazing to me