X-Message-Number: 32075
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet Rating System and Message Content Suppression
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:12:25 +0200
References: <>

On 16 Oct 2009, at 11:00 AM, Kitty Antonik Wakfer wrote:

> For this rating system to be of true value, the raters need to be
> identified, by at least the identity they use to receive messages (so
> that the censors themselves can be judged and possibly censored by
> others).

>  Surely non-rated messages should contribute to a
> poster's "reputation" as "acceptable" since they at least were not
> objectionable. However, I do not see this in Kevin's system.

I had extensive communication with Kevin when the Rating System was  
started, pointing out the above problems and others. I also  
transmitted my published articles in the hopes that a theoretically  
solid model would be employed:


Extended abstract:

Stodolsky, D. S. (2002). Computer-network based democracy: Scientific  
communication as a basis for governance. Proceedings of the 3rd  
International Workshop on Knowledge Management in e-Government, 7,  
127-137.

http://dss.secureid.org/stories/storyReader$14


Comprehensive

Stodolsky, D. S. (1995). Consensus Journals: Invitational journals  
based upon peer review. The Information Society, 11(4). [1994 version  
in N. P. Gleditsch, P. H. Enckell, & J. Burchardt (Eds.), Det  
videnskabelige tidsskrift (The scientific journal) (pp. 151-160).  
Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. (Tema NORD 1994: 574)]

http://dss.secureid.org/stories/storyReader$19


The latest (includes citation to an implementation attempt):

Stodolsky, D. (2002). Scientific publication needs a peer consensus.  
Psycoloquy, 13(2).

http://dss.secureid.org/stories/storyReader$20


Discussion of organizational impacts of the system:

Stodolsky, D. (1994). Telematic journals and organizational control:  
Integrity, authority, and self-regulation. Interpersonal Computing and  
Technology, 2(1).

<http://www.helsinki.fi/science/optek/1994/n1/stodolsk.txt>


Implementation of my model would be straight forward for someone that  
has programming skills. I already have the software to do the  
consensus calculations needed. So, if I received the ratings in an  
appropriate format, the calculations could be done and sent back to  
the System automatically.

The current System promotes censorship and dishonesty (attempts to  
beat the Rating System by strategic responding). Since the entire  
business model of the Industry is based upon trust, this is a  
continuing public relations disaster. Yet another example of amateur  
social science going wrong.


dss

David Stodolsky
  Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32075