outreach: giving Wikimedia users Gridcoins for their activity?
edit 2017 July 11:
- since people use this article to write stuff about me (e.g. this), let me add what I told in chat today about this as intro:
me: I have talked yesterday and the day before with 2 "higher ups", that I would only post publically known stuff from now on
me: so, I assured them
me: but I also told one of the secrets to 2 people in PM
me: it's on them to publish or not
me: and it's also not like what I told in PM to 'em is not yet mentioned by me in my previous posts on steemit, people just have to read the comment where it is
me: and that 1 particularly "secret" I shared is also known to surely like 10-20 people, mostly people who are longer in the community than me
me: and that Wikipedia idea is just 1 mentioned, it may be not ideal, but the point is to show that the BOINC we rely on is not good
me: it works so far, yes
me: but I have mentioned already (DDOS, cheating by admins themselves, hacking possibility, cheating by users, ...) BOINC's flaws
me: and it isn't like I told in chat also that they should not panic sell (see chat log)
me: but:
me: I will continue to criticize more from now on
me: I also explained this to a few trusted people yesterday in PM
me: and why I actually do that
me: you guys just don't understand yet why + how it helps
me: you all just think short-term
...
me: why should I leave ?
me: as explained in PMs: my actions are with the intent to stay longterm
...
me: the DDOS part is about BOINC servers falling
me: I am not talking yet about bugs or so in the BOINC software
me: and I also mentioned how people can cheat with BOINC
me: not only users but BOINC admins and whatnot
me: these are 3 issues for the moment I mentioned
me: and nothing yet in the domain of Gridcoin
and now, to the original article:
Since there was some feedback yesterday about:
let me explain what I mean with relying on something else than BOINC...
We could add also Wikipedia statistics into Gridcoin so the editors there can get GRC for their activities.
me: and there are so many Wikipedia language editions
me: and then there is also many sister projects like: Wikisource, ....
me: lots of people (e.g. English Wikipedia has 116k editors who were active in last 30 days)
To the reader:
- do you have ideas what kind of other projects besides BOINC, Wikipedia would be ideal ?
private chat log from today:
me: you think 1-way
me: think about when BOINC is gone
me: we need a 2nd foot
me: or more feet
me: there is more to the BOINC weaknessess (coming in future articles: wingman attacks, cherry picking, claiming a PFC, ... see more)
me: relying on BOINC is shit
me: and once the team requirement falls, you all will see why it's shit
user1: Why will we do that?
me: because then the cheating begins
user1: ah
me: we rely on data by BOINC
me: that is another basic weakness (e.g. RAC manipulation by BOINC admin possible; hacking possibility due to e.g. BOINC admin being not experienced in sysadmin stuff, ...)
me: which we can't control
me: the BOINC we rely on is so flawed
me: and then there are also bugs in Gridcoin
me: this can't just go well
me: we are lucky it went well so far
me: or better no one noticed when people took a part of the cakes out
me: and once you realize all that, you will see the urgence for another thing than BOINC
me: not throwing away BOINC, but
me: so that Gridcoin still could exist without BOINC in serious emergencies
user1: You mean like a "competitor" or a completely different way of handling the jobs? Like integrated within the chain itself?
me: stuff like e.g. paying Wikipedia editors with Gridcoin, based on their (edit) statistics
me: or other scientific apps with available stats
user1: ooooh
user1: That's a really cool idea
me: I know
me: and it's easy to implement
user1: In reality anything that can be measured.
me: yes
user1: I like that.
user1: Ney
user1: I love that
user1: And it shouldn't be hard to implement either. Every whitelisted non-BOINC project is implemented as a "plugin" in the NN where a mag (or really a percentage of work done) is delivered.
user1: I guess the CPID equivalence makes it more difficult but it's just an identifier on a particular network.
me: the only weakness with the Wikipedia stats is:
me: it's again centralistic structure we rely on, and which can be DDOS'd or manipulated
In the case of BOINC it is more like a symbiotic relation with Gridcoin, since Gridcoin users give hardware power to help the research on the BOINC projects.
me: the thing is: Gridcoin is a parasite
me: it relies on others, does nothing itself
me: and that is another of its weaknesses
me: but at least from target potential:
me: Wikipedia and its famousness is worth the flaws
user1: It's doable and we can probably code towards it without disturbing the current mechanisms
me: yeah, most things are easy querable on the toolserver of the Wikimedia foundation
me: and there are so many Wikipedia language editions
me: and then there is also many sister projects like: Wikisource, ....
me: lots of people (e.g. English Wikipedia has 116k editors who were active in last 30 days)
me: and the data querying is same: for all
me: you implement it once and can reuse easy
me: just changing url
"Wikipedia and its famousness is worth the flaws"
I strongly disagree on this one. You are talking about "target potential" as if we are about to conquer a new market.
I'm not sure what your expectations are regarding a collaboration with Wikipedia, but if we end up doing this, nothing really changes about the relationship between GRC and its counterpart: it will still be a "symbiotic relation" - actually, I don't really see the difference, especially since you criticize the dependency on BOINC projects. With Wikipedia GRC would also be dependant on their system - just the "product" changes.
As for the "target potential" I'm not sure I understand. Are you talking about Wikipedia editors and users jumping on the hype train once they discover GRC? Why would they suddenly become part of this concept, respectively start to invest in GRC the moment it develops a relationship with the Wikimedia Foundation? What exactly are you hoping for in this scenario? More miners? More traders gambling on exchanges?
Maybe I'm a bit biased because I like GRC because of the collaboration with BOINC, plus I'm fairly new to all of this so I might not get the big picture here. But imho marketing and joint ventures don't make any sense if GRC doesn't have any real purpose - not only within the crypto community, but also within the real world.
If you simply want to start some hype and get more people on the train, I guess your marketing strategy is a legit solution to get more people involved. But the lack of long-term investment options as well as long-term GRC application will just create another bubble that will do more damage than good imho.
I agree:
what do you think about my loose proposal described here?
It's on my to-read-list for this week. I'll let you know when I'm done :)
What about arXiv ?
There is a draft project in the Gridcoin brainstorm related to rewarding research papers : https://steemit.com/boinc/@cm-steem/brainstorming-boinc-projects-003#@cm-steem/re-cm-steem-brainstorming-boinc-projects-003-20161207t232355590z
Or https://oeis.org
Worth checking out the idea of 'proof of scientific research', previously brainstormed by myself: https://steemit.com/boinc/@cm-steem/brainstorming-boinc-projects-003#@cm-steem/re-cm-steem-brainstorming-boinc-projects-003-20161207t232355590z
Thx @chronosamoht56 and @cm-steem That's a precious reference
who the fuck is @chronosamoht56 ? I'm Chronosamoht, The One and Only.
;)
oups sorry for that!
I'm not 100% convinced about paying Wikipedia editors with GRC. I like the core concept about this idea but I feel there are too many aspects that need to be considered to avoid exploit/abuse of such a system.
Even with a secure system, there remain many questions, e.g. who gets rewarded and for what exactly? How can we measure editor performance properly?
But most importantly: the Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit afaik, which means their current system relies on donations - which also has a legal framework. So would it even be possible to pay Wikipedia editors with GRC or would this violate current terms and conditions the Wikimedia Foundation has agreed to?
The same goes for projects like arXiv.org - however if we are about to do something like this, I would prefer arXiv over Wikipedia because it doesn't have issues with content quality. The peer review process is high standard and well accepted among the scientific community. This would provide an easier implementation because exploits are non-existant imho.
lol pretty good idea
I think we had enough with Erkan's fud and why his wikipedia idea would never work: https://steemit.com/gridcoin/@trumpman/i-think-we-had-enough-with-erkan-s-bullshit-and-why-his-wikipedia-suggestion-is-retarded
As I said yesterday... Your posts get more retarded by the day. What the fuck does "and once the team requirement falls, you all will see why it's shit" mean? If you have something to say, say it. Or stop with the fud
why so less vote ups ? support you support me ?
why we not move just littlebit und make something good for us (you + me = us )
i am support erkan
vega40k