SA: "I have the vision that research communities' crowd intelligence could
be employed in the Web 2.0 style for deciding about research funding". (01)
MB: "...we see people can vote resources...Allowing people to add
ontology-based annotations is just similar and would be another step
forward."
JC: "Google scholar provides citation counts, which while still a fairly
rough measure, does include an idea of the importance of any piece of work." (02)
PDeL: "I agree with the value of the wisdom of the crowd effect in many
cases, however it should be controlled somehow to prevent the emergence of
"foolishness of the crowd". (03)
MP: "We second the idea of common standard ontologies for the semantic web
use." (04)
These points are all the significant sides and aspects of one problem,
(Academic) Research Illusion: "deluding by creating illusory ideas",
"considered scientific (magical) by laymen (naive observers)", " something
what is false", "erroneous mental representation". (05)
I incline to think that the "crowd intelligence" or "foolishness of the
crowd" may explain the nature of the "phenomenon", and a canonic world model
encoded as a machine-understandable common ontology standards of meanings
may allow to head off it at all. (06)
To my knowledge, there are no semantic applications on Intelligence and
Collective Intelligence or Stupidity and Crowd Stupidity, what must be a big
miss. Some public ventilation of these really critical issues could be of
use, theoretical and practical. (07)
Interestingly, while googling "Intelligence" (the power to perceive, learn,
image, remember, understand, reason and think, will, or communicate), one
gets 130 m hits, while looking for "Stupidity" (lack of intelligence,
mentally limited, dumbness, ignorance, an absence of ideas), just 12,2 m
hits. There was an economic historian Carlo Cipolla, who tried to formulate
the fundamental laws of stupidity. One of them: A person is stupid if he
causes damage to another person or group of people without experiencing
personal gain, or even worse causing damage to themselves in the process.
Accordingly, he distinguished four groups of people: (08)
1.. Intelligent people (bringing benefits to themselves and others,
generating news values and assets);
2.. Naive or Helpless people (bringing benefits to others and losses to
themselves, enriching the few);
3.. Criminals or Bandits (just redistributing the assets);
4.. Stupid people (causing losses to themselves and society at large,
destroying the assets).
Its is plain that of all sorts of stupidity, the most dangerous is the one
coming from learned professionals, so there to put the academic research
head gamers is an open question. (09)
Community-based knowledge forums as Wikipedia are increasingly represented
as collective intelligence (WikiMind symbiotic intelligence) projects.
Apropos, other legacy examples of collective intelligence (or stupidity?)
are political parties (for nation-wide political stupidity or global
political dullness are sitting here). (010)
The Group Intelligence (group mind, collective intelligence, crowd wisdom)
implies collectively solving complex problems by means of networked ICT (as
the Internet and Web) resulting in enhancing individual minds and
self-identity. Or, technically, it is about a global virtual collaboration
of individual minds guided by standard ontological world models and semantic
technologies as well as by peering, sharing, objectivity and professional
knowledge. (011)
By contrast, Group Stupidity suggests all sort of costly academic research
illusions at the cost of degrading individual minds and losing
self-identity, technically aggravated by numerous separate ontologies and
views and disjoint applications. (012)
Azamat Abdoullaev (013)
http://www.eis.com.cy (014)
PS: As a side note, propose to establish ASA, Academic Stupidity Awards
(with categories in each knowledge domain, the stupidest idea, the stupidest
article, the stupidest research project, the stupidest academician; for
political correctness to use "unintelligent" instead of "stupid"). And
please don't mix it with Ig Noble prizes,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ig_Noble, having some sense. The existent World
Stupidity Awards will then become just a funny joke. (015)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sören Auer" <auer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jeremy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "'Azamat'" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "'[ontolog-forum] '"
<ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "'SW-forum'" <semantic-web@xxxxxx>;
<mjarrar@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 11:04 PM
Subject: Re: Research Illusion (016)
Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> Google scholar provides citation counts, which while still a
> fairly rough measure, does include an idea of the importance
> of any piece of work. (017)
I agree that citation counts are a pretty good estimate of a works impact. (018)
A more severe problem from my point of view is the distribution of
research funds. (019)
Existing paradigms seem to be either biased towards large established
organizations or well-connected, long established individuals. For
innovative ideas and younger researchers it is much harder. (020)
I have the vision that research communities' crowd intelligence could be
employed in the Web 2.0 style for deciding about research funding [1]. (021)
--Sören (022)
[1] http://wiki.cofundos.org/ (023)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (024)
|