Wikipedia accountability problems; competing accrediting agencies
Wikipedia hate: the problem is that no one is accountable for the content of the articles. There have been cases of people getting slandered, who could do nothing about it.
The Wikipedia badly needs a reputation system (which writers/editors do you trust?) or an endorsement system (which reviewers do you trust?), but preferably several parallel systems.
Once people become accustomed to the notion of different accrediting agencies, the world would become a much better place. I believe that much evil comes from monopolies in rating, which leads to a greyscale view of things, e.g. you only get 1 grade for each class, and lots of relevant information is kept off-record... when we have competition between raters, they will have to become smarter and less biased, their ratings will be more meaningful and will better reflect the bottom line.
My hope is that this will lead people to make smarter decisions about politics, hiring, etc. You can say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
The Wikipedia badly needs a reputation system (which writers/editors do you trust?) or an endorsement system (which reviewers do you trust?), but preferably several parallel systems.
Once people become accustomed to the notion of different accrediting agencies, the world would become a much better place. I believe that much evil comes from monopolies in rating, which leads to a greyscale view of things, e.g. you only get 1 grade for each class, and lots of relevant information is kept off-record... when we have competition between raters, they will have to become smarter and less biased, their ratings will be more meaningful and will better reflect the bottom line.
My hope is that this will lead people to make smarter decisions about politics, hiring, etc. You can say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.