On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 05:45:21AM -0400, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> In essence,
> they're taking the peer-reviewed authors and putting them straight to
> LANL, and indeed this will work fine, until the day when thousands upon
> untold thousands of non-peer-reviewed authors crash the system and the
> whole thing goes the way of Usenet.
No. They're decoupling the publishing from the reviewing.
In times where publishing was more expensive than reviewing,
it made sense to review BEFORE to publish, so as to avoid waste.
In times where publishing is free and reviewing as expensive as ever,
it makes sense to publish BEFORE to review.
Once works are published in a reliable place, it's easy for anyone
to make competing review committees, with a free market for reviewing.
> I also want to see the reputation-manager problem
> *thoroughly* solved, tested, and debugged for, say, the Extropian mailing
> list, before we try replacing the peer review system.
"Before we end state planification, I'd like to have a thoroughly solved,
tested, and debugged model of how the market will solve all these economic
problems." Sounds oxymoronic to me. The very reason why we must let the
market do it is because there is no way it could be done in a centralized
way by any kind of benevolent authority (even assuming such thing exists).
Maybe someday I'll go further than words, and actually implement THEOLIS.net
[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ]
[ TUNES project for a Free Reflective Computing System | http://tunes.org ]
The [classical] liberal, of course, does not deny that there are
some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies
that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are.
-- F. A. Hayek, "Why I Am Not a Conservative"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:56 MDT