The wikipedia function

In the ongoing debate on open edit content (like wikipedia) the problem becomes how to gain reliability that an edit or an entry is accurate. Below I give a function that attempts to turn reliability into a function based on:

1) Number and quality of edits
2) tenure on wikipedia

Certain other things I considered:

Assume all edits are "voted" on (which indirectly they are if they are subsequently edited, or if they stand)

The quality of an edit is a function of time -- the longer it stands unchallenged, the more reliable it must be.
Of course, it is possible that it's complete fabrication on a wildly obscure topic (meaning no one has come along to challenge it). But, then the information is no niche can anyone claim expertise?

Also, the quality of an edit, after it is edited is a function of how much the of the original edit their is. If your entire entry is thrown out, how good could it be? On the other hand, a few tweaks means nothing.

Those edits must also be a function of the user who made them. After all, you don't want a mob of extremist to suddenly ban together to devalue a piece of factual, but controversial, information. Example: Abortion. Also, if that person has been time and again re-edited, then anything he has to say must be taken with a grain of salt.

It is with that that I propose this equation:

reliability of user = 1 - prod(1 ->num edits,n(i)) where n is the set of vote scores
in words, the user is only as reliable as the product of the score of his edits with the limit being 1

To account for partial edits we take a simple ration of the original text and divide by the size of the edit
sizeof(t)/sizeof(e)

vote score = 1 * 1 - (((t1/t2) * sizeof(t)/sizeof(e)) * user(n)) where t1 is the timestamp of the original edit ad t2 is the timestamp of the changes

So now, before any edit can occurr, it goes for a vote to anyone registered as a stake holder in an entry. (Easy to do in wikipedia)

2 options are possible:
1) Vote yes/no to keep the edit (-user for no +user for yes, sum them for result)
2) The edit exists temporarily until enough weight from other editors ocurrs.

So basically, edits are a vote on a subset of text. And if your text doesn't get challenged, then it stand.

What do you think?

Powered by ScribeFire.

"The Man" who is also in the middle

I got my MS in Computer Science and did my thesis on networks and security. Of course, one of the things we always looked for and tried to defend against was the main-in-the-middle attack. Interestingly enough though, we always treated the ISP as a neutral carrier. But what happens if your ISP is actively working against you! Then you truly have a problem!

With Comcast sending forged RST packets for Bittorent traffic, some ISPs block whole ranges of ports and packets how can you continue to conduct network bussiness when you are required to use a hostile man-in-the-middle?

First encryption. But it needs to be 100% end user seemless. The idea of this encryption isn't user verification, just preventing man in the middle interference.

Second: port overload. We all know of course that only LEGITIMATELY encrypted traffic is on SSL 443. Redirect all traffic there.

Dark nets: They have to be seemless.

A new battle in networks is beginning. You need their services but they want to sell you access per port and application. Starting to sound like cellphone carriers.

Powered by ScribeFire.

The travelling airplane algorithm

I was reading about how the government has come up with a genius new method for making airline traffic safer and more efficient. Although generally all large government IT projects fail (FBI trilogy project anyone?), this might succeed simply because real economic interests are at stake here and not some bureaucrats pension and budget.

I hold though that this is one of the cases where the Government should step away. This is a classic case of where capitalism can prevail. Just take the chains off and let airports (assuming commercial ownership) decide whether or not to keep the old system or use an improved new one. The only requirement: They must be compatible and cannot charge for compatibility. Even if all airports were independently owned, it wouldn't take long for them to figure out a way to co-operate. Without it they couldn't get a single plane off the ground. Could you imagine: Flight XXX leaves at 5:10 and arrives??? Well, without a compatible way to tell the destination your arrival time you wouldn't be landing. Now that I think about it more, this problem has already been solved by ISPs. If you look at data as airplanes, and airports as routers, it suddenly becomes solved. Except the economic incentive is reversed. You want MORE airplanes through your port (charge for landing) not less.

Really we need a lot more regional airports and not all these large choke point hubs.

Powered by ScribeFire.

On Software

In the software world, ESPECIALLY in government work, there is this believe that if we look deep enough and hard enough into a crystal ball we can know all that this application must do and behold, it will be good.

That's complete crap! Software needs to be more like nature and Darwin. You see, nature did not give the creatures of the Earth their ability to run, fly or breath under water overnight. Rather, she had a plan. For example, she took and made a creature that was kinda what she wanted. A bird didn't start off as a bird. It started off with something that had wing-like things. In the beginning, it could glide only. With time natural selection dictated that those that could fly the fastest and longest survived and thus could continue to breed.

But this process took many revisions. If you look at Man we must be on version 6.0 and we are constantly patching it!

Software design needs to be exactly like chess. Strategy and tactics. You have a plan and position your pieces to best implement that plan. You try to see somewhat into the future to make sure there are no obvious missteps and you go forward (this is exactly how grandmasters play). Sometimes things change, but if you had a solid strategy and your tactics were sound you can adapt to changes easily and still win.

Koolaid anyone?

I was reading on that ultra tech-leftist website /. that the EU only official supports Windows and MAC platforms for their online broadcasts. The reason being that they use WMV and they can't legally support Linux, etc.

Per the EU's own dictum: The Official Journal of the European Union shall be published in the twenty official languages.

How can an institution that refers to languages as: "Europe's assets" accept using a technology that specifically prohibits legal digest of materials by some of it's members when perfectly acceptable alternatives exist that remove this restriction?

I truly believe that, some people just haven't made then mental transition from old-tech to new tech. What if our constitution were written in, say, Latin (and in stone). How accessible and forward looking would that be? Media formats/technologies ARE the pen-and-paper of our time and will forever more be that way. Handwriting will be considered a quaint art form and will be something akin to calligraphy. Just ask a middle school English teacher about the writing skills of the students. 0r r u 2 stupd?

A vocal revolution

Skype. There, I have said it. I believe in the technology and tools of Skype pretty passionately. I have managed to convert dozens of people into the fold in my last few jobs. I have been so passionate about what you can do with it that people routinely ask me if I have a stock or work there.

Admittedly, since eBay bought Skype the innovation engine has been silent with Skype. Releases are slower and pricing structures are changing. At the time I thought the marriage was odd at best (people use eBay specifically because they don't want the hassle of phone calls and chat), but now I am convinced it was wrong. YouTube was worth 1.6bn before Skype was worth 3.2bn. Google should have bought Skype and here is why:

I will only give the most innovative feature of Skype here -- Skypecasts. Basically, a Skypecast is a real time discussion on a given topic. People click, and they can come in, listen, speak, ask, curse and discuss. Think of it like one of those side rooms at a conference. So, how does this fit with Google: Easy. Imagine if you did a search on "Medicate part D" because you were so confused. And, amongst the text results is a little button offering you to join a Skypecast on the subject!!! Now that's information -- that's Web 2.0. Sad that eBay will never realize that and Google doesn't own them.

But the most phenomenal thing for me about Skypecasts is that, at anytime, and anyplace, I can find someone to talk to in any language. My story about this: One night, I decided to create a Polish Skypecast. In just a few minutes a participant came in (native Polish) and we began to speak. It turns out that he is a Polish soldier, fighting in the French Foreign legion stationed in Djibouti. It also turns out he speaks phenomenally well English and some level of functional French. Him, I and an English guy (who I also met in a Skypecast) spent 3 hours in a Skype call talking about People, Politics and Porn and loved it.

Nothing has the potential to bring the world together more than Skype.

Finally a Music model that can work

One of the Raging debates in the IP work these days is Music and Piracy. If you ask the Music industry, copying an MP3 to your friends iPod is a crime worse than rape (think I am kidding? 250k fine and 5years in jail per instance). If you ask those doing the copying, they aren't quite seeing how sharing a MP3 with their friends (or the whole internet) is really effecting the likes of R. Kelly or Britney Spears -- and further, that they see no obligation to support their ultra-lavish life styles of Golden-shower kiddy porn or Stripper activity. So, that being said, There is plenty to like about this new model. Hell, even slashdot approves of it. And, it makes sense.

DRM just can't work. It's logically flawed. To make any scheme like DRM work you need to give the end users the keys to the encrypted material which then can trivially be copied. But, by catering the the supply-demand model you can allow new artist to easily flourish and popular ones to reap rewards.

Given it's novel approach and the fact that slashdot approves, it is certain to be shot-down by the RIAA.

Powered by ScribeFire.