Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Arxiv.org on IPFS

xirva.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 77 posts

Re: Show HN: Arxiv.org on IPFS

#31

Post by hugoroussel »

lmohseni wrote: post #29
NmAmDa wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually I don't think science has democratic nature. Yes we do somehow do that as a theory would still need to be accepted widely. But in reality one person can have the correct idea while all others disagree. Still this person is doing it right.

I believe science is a democratic process. If someone has the correct idea but communicates it poorly, so poorly that others in the field disagree, then this person is doing it wrong. (Thinking specifically of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinichi_Mochizuki )

All and all it is a non trivial problem. You have at the very least have to attach some kind of form of reputation system into the verification process. Even with that you will still have the "misunderstood genius" issue, or the "excellent reputation professor" that everyone trust without (enough) verification.

Re: Show HN: Arxiv.org on IPFS

#32

Post by hugoroussel »

eecc wrote: post #30

Ah cool… I also took a stab at something similar several years ago: https://github.com/ecausarano/heron Also at the time I was considering IPFS. But I guess the real trick is implementing a WOT to implement peer review and filter out the inevitable junk that will be published

Exactly the problem that I have. Many edge cases too.

Re: Show HN: Arxiv.org on IPFS

#37

Post by wongarsu »

NmAmDa wrote: post #28
f0e4c2f7 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A perfect system? No, but think about how people must have felt about Wikipedia on launch. Love this idea.

Actually I don't think science has democratic nature. Yes we do somehow do that as a theory would still need to be accepted widely. But in reality one person can have the correct idea while all others disagree. Still this person is doing it right.

Scientific consensus is democratic in nature (even though votes are not distributed evenly). The ideal is that through reproducible experiments and application of the scientific method the scientific consensus moves to increasingly accurate models of reality over time. But obviously the speed at which that happens varies, and some right ideas took annoyingly long to get accepted into scientific consensus.

Re: Show HN: Arxiv.org on IPFS

#39

Post by eecc »

sebmellen wrote: post #20

Hey Hugo, do you have an email I could reach you at? I've been thinking/working on these problems for 3 years now and would love to find some smart people to partner with to further develop the ideas. I don't have much to show publicly right now, but https://intpub.org/ (soon to be scipub.app) is the start.

Also keep me in the loop, plz :)

Re: Show HN: Arxiv.org on IPFS

#40

Post by gambler »

f0e4c2f7 wrote: post #25
onhn wrote: post #18

"You can upload your research and publish it on the open web. Members of the community will be able to vote on your research to raise its visibility." Oh dear.

A perfect system? No, but think about how people must have felt about Wikipedia on launch. Love this idea.

Using Wikipedia as an example of a seemingly naïve idea that was ultimately proven to work is a pretty bad argument that completely ignores how Wikipedia operates at the moment.

It's routinely used for propagating smears:

https://odysee.com/@AlisonMorrow:6/how-wikipedia-decides-if-...

Even one of its co-founders says it's failing as an accurate source of information:

https://odysee.com/@TimcastIRL:8/former-founder-of-wikipedia...

Just like Jaron Lanier predicted in 2006:

https://www.edge.org/conversation/jaron_lanier-digital-maois...

I never understood why so many technologists vehemently defend a website that was obviously prone to a form of "regulatory capture" and groupthink.

Post reply on HN