dsstodol@daimi.aau.dk (David S. Stodolsky) (10/27/90)
Mutual moderation can eliminate the problem of authorities by distributing control to users. Say that whenever you read a post you immediately reply either worth reading (Y) or not worth reading (N). Your news reader collects review messages from others automatically and uses its database of previous review performance by these same persons to give a post waiting to be read a priority score. The database shows the correlation (in the simplest case) between your own past judgements and those of others like this (review message also shown): Name correlation review Tom .8 Y Dick .1 N Hari -.9 N Tom, who you usually agree with you, thinks the waiting message is worth reading. Dick, who agrees with you slightly more than half the time, doesn't think it worth reading. Hari, who almost always disagrees with you, thinks its not worth reading. Conclusion: read it. Your best source of review information is Hari, if he doesn't like it, most likely you will. So, you read it and like it. You reply "Y" to the net and the system updates this part of your database to look like: Name correlation Tom .85 Dick .05 Hari -.95 Of course, you also are building up reputation info. on the author and any new reviewers, whose names are added to the database. Learning is really fast, since you update the reputation of the author and all reviewers, each time you review a message. You can also develop a good reputation yourself without posting at all (except for review messages). New users can just look at which posts are getting good reviews, and on the average they will see good stuff (an Emily Postnews view) even without performance information in their databases. Astute authors could see if they are getting bad reviews from people they usually agree with and delete offending posts before they totally destroy their reputations. (A feature like this could do wonders for net bandwidth :-). If this is all done right, the quality of posts (you see) should exceed that of scientific journal articles (assuming an equal quality in authors' contributions). A database updating procedure would be enough to get started. The idea behind the followup group in the *.groupware(.f) new group proposal was to have a separate channel that eventually would be used just for machine readable review messages. This could be done immediately with the creation of *.groupware(.f) if somebody wants to write a few lines of code. More details in: Stodolsky, D. (in press). Protecting expression in teleconferencing: Pseudonym-based peer review journals. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication. ([1989, May 9] Communication Research and Theory Network [CRTNET], No. 175 [Semi-final draft available by electronic mail from LISTSERV@PSUVM.BITNET at University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, Department of Speech Communication and COMSERVE@Vm.ecs.rpi.edu at Troy, NY: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Language, Literature, and Communication) Abstract The social environments of educational systems are less than ideal because power differentials exist that can suppress the free exchange of ideas. One solution is to strengthen personal integrity with an anonymity shield. Many text-based conferencing systems permit anonymous contributions, but this often leads to irresponsible behavior. If people are limited to one and only one pseudonym, however, responsible behavior can be expected. This reputation preserving anonymity overcomes the problems with traditional systems. A reputation is developed through peer evaluation which is based on routinely elicited judgments. Evaluative judgments of a message by one person can be available to all other potential receivers of that message immediately. Evaluations can then be used to automatically select messages worth reading. This approach deals effectively with the problems of both information overload and irresponsible behavior while providing the highest possible protection of expression. -------- Much more detail in: Stodolsky, D. (1988, October). Scientific publication through electronic media. Appendix to a research proposal, Selekterende elektronisk publikation, submitted to the Danish Natural Sciences Research Council. (This is a repost. See "Self-moderated posting scheme") -- David S. Stodolsky Office: + 45 46 75 77 11 x 21 38 Department of Computer Science Home: + 45 31 55 53 50 Bldg. 20.2, Roskilde University Center Internet: david@ruc.dk Post Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark Fax: + 45 46 75 74 01