Slashdot Mirror
New Collaborative Project Wants to Systematize Complex Problem Solving Online
New submitter albert555 writes A new collaborative project emerged lately and its goal is pretty ambitious: solving complex problems. Anyone will look to Google or Quora for the response of a usual question that requires one single answer, but nothing exists online to solve complex problems with multiple solutions. The website uses brainstorming techniques coupled with the Problem Tree Methodology to them. In simple words: decomposing the main issue into subsequent small-ones and providing solutions to the sub-issues, the result taking form of a node tree. Users are free to provide meaningful content to the nodes (and therefore may help understand the causes of the issues) or to provide solutions to the ultimate sub-issues. Contributions are placed under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. While Wikipedia proved that collective intelligence could provide quality contents able to compete with the major encyclopedias. Eris Solver intends to channel the wisdom of the crowd to find the best solutions to the most complex problems available. The idea is interesting, though so far the project does not have contributions pouring in like Wikipedia does. You can add your own questions or answers; "user contributions to Solver questions and general questions [are] licensed under the CC BY-SA 4.0."
How will this work in reality since we know that net trolls are frequent and willing to insert their skewed view into the results?
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Fuckoff
Checked the site. Seems like the answer to every problem I saw is "regulate it".
I wonder if this kind of effort will eventually lead to a solid theory for the P=NP problem.
That's a complex problem. Please find a solution.
While Wikipedia proved that collective intelligence could provide quality contents able to compete with the major encyclopedias...
Wikipedia proved that "no cost and good enough most of the time" outcompetes "expensive and authoratative/reliable". I think this has a lot more to do with Wikipedia's success than the supposed quality of the contents.
Wikipedia also wins on its huge breadth. If what you want from your encyclopedia is plot summaries of television shows and extensive biographies of those shows' fictional characters, Wikipedia is really your only choice.
Make this problem solving setup work!
Site requires a log-in, is difficult to navigate, doesn't look very fun or interesting.
And has a "Copyright blah blah Consulting" remarkably visible on the page without scrolling, reminding you that unlike Wikipedia which is a non-profit, that you are contributing to someone's interest and ownership. Nothing wrong with that, but is marketing and perception fail immediately --- tone deaf.
Regardless of the supposed license, unless you can download the database then the license is irrelevant --- and it has some nice -- "Yeah CC 4.0 for user contributed stuff" whatever that means ---and you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Crowd sourcing projects that succeed tend to be sincere in want to promote a common good (which may happen to be very profitable privately --- take Wikia which is the flip side of Wikipedia).
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
A new collaborative project emerged lately
Anyone will look for google or quora to the response of a usual question that requires one single answer
I'm guessing the submitter's first language isn't English, which I shouldn't be able to do if the editors were doing their job.
Still, nice to see a summary that isn't a copy-and-paste of a couple of paragraphs from the linked article.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
This site mails back your password to you after signup. Maybe they need to solve their own problems first?
Collaboration on this site is severely limited. Everything i try results in "Your area of expertise doesn't correspond to the disciplines required by the creator of the question to respond to it"
Nice way to invite others.
I'm not a native speaker either (too?). I think I can fix the second sentence
(Anyone will look for google or quora to the response of a usual question that requires one single answer
Anyone will look for Google or Quora for the response to a usual question that requires one single answer
but I would probably write the sentence differently anyway)
but what is wrong with lately in the first sentence?
I would have written recently myself, but according to the dictionary it means the same.
Bert
so solving the comple problem will be reduced to the not less complex problem of weedign out the spam created by idiots?
Lately means recent by nature, not merely recently.
Lately means recent by nature
and/or recent with non-punctual aspect.
political in nature. Science denial, a willingness to kill in the name of religion, etc. Can it address that type of problem?
Is it really annoying when you start your
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Wikipedia: for trolls, by trolls.
Linux is this very thing.
They require registration... Moderation should be done via IP bans and pre-approval of posts: NOT taxing users valuable time. At least make it OpenID so I don't have to further increase my generic bullshit password's attack surface.
you don't have to read it if it annoys you.
This project seems to have similar ambitions to the Justify project. Justify's creator has a good overview of Justify and has published some thoughts about why softwear like this is important.
In simple words: decomposing the main issue into subsequent small-ones and providing solutions to the sub-issues, the result taking form of a node tree.
The entire community is going to get stuck on one of those unsolvable graph theory problems.