X-Message-Number: 32404 From: David Stodolsky <> Subject: RE: uppity_cryonet_members Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 14:53:23 +0100 References: <> On 19 Feb 2010, at 11:00 AM, Warren Keevers wrote: > Actually there was one comment that really stuck with me, and I > forget who > it was from (sorry), but stated the fact that the discussions here > don't > really reflect the majority of cryonics members, it is just the vocal > minority. The problem of a vocal minority dominating discussion and the unacceptable 'noise' level on CryoNet has been a problem for a long time. The current rating system was installed as a stopgap measure. That has proved to have a marginal effect and to create problems of censorship, probably due to low participation in the rating process. At the time, I suggested a theoretically sound approach to quality control that you can read about here, if you have five minutes: http://dss.secureid.org/stories/storyReader$14 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. Comprehensive exposition: http://dss.secureid.org/stories/storyReader$19 Stodolsky, D. S. (1995). Consensus Journals: Invitational journals based upon peer review. The Information Society, 11(4). Setting this up in a trial form, would be a relatively straightforward programming job. You have urged us to *do something*. As a programmer, this is your chance to contribute to the progress of life-extension technology. A high quality publication would improve communication within the Movement, and improve the reputation of the Movement with the scientific community and the general public. As the latest news shows, such improvement is needed in order to reduce the risk of poor suspensions as a result of interference with procedures. dss David Stodolsky Skype: davidstodolsky Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32404