3 ms·

Ah cool… I also took a stab at something similar several years ago: https://github.com/ecausarano/heron https://github.com/ecausarano/heron Also at the time I

by eecc 5y ago

Ah cool… I also took a stab at something similar several years ago: https://github.com/ecausarano/heron 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

hugoroussel 5y ago
Exactly the problem that I have. Many edge cases too.
kloch 5y ago
What do you mean by junk? Spam and Abuse, or scientific papers that the reviewer simply doesn't like?
- eecc 5y ago
  Well, as anyone can and will publish, it will be stuffed with junk, porn, trash of all sorts, so my plan was to implement a filter to ignore any data published outside of one’s WOT. Furthermore, a user searching for “reviewed” data and papers would normally filter for items with enough “endorsement” metadata items signed by known WOT actors. I haven’t figured a mechanism to prevent “review rings”, although being totally transparent it should be easy to spot them.
westurner 5y ago
"Help compare Comment and Annotation services: moderation, spam, notifications, configurability" executablebooks/meta#102 https://github.com/executablebooks/meta/discussions/102 https://github.com/executablebooks/meta/discussions/102 : > jupyter-comment supports a number of commenting services [...]. In helping users decide which commenting and annotation services to include on their pages and commit to maintaining, could we discuss criteria for assessment and current features of services? > Possible features for comparison: > * Content author can delete / hide > * Content author can report / block > * Comments / annotations are screened by spam-fighting service > * Content / author can label as e.g. toxic > * Content author receives notification of new comments > * Content author can require approval before user-contributed content is publicly-visible > * Content author may allow comments for a limited amount of time (probably more relevant to BlogPostings) > * Content author may simultaneously denounce censorship in all it's forms while allowing previously-published works to languish #ForScience
- westurner 5y ago
  FWIW, archiving repo2docker-compatible git repos with a DOI attached to a git tag, is possible with JupyterLite: > JupyterLite is a JupyterLab distribution that runs entirely in the browser built from the ground-up using JupyterLab components and extensions With JupyterLite, you can build a static archive of a repo2docker-like environment so that the ScholarlyArticle notebook or computer modern latex css, its SoftwareRelease dependencies, and possibly also the Datasets can be run in a browser tab with WASM. HTML + JS + WASM

by eecc 5y ago

hugoroussel 5y ago

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

kloch 5y ago

What do you mean by junk? Spam and Abuse, or scientific papers that the reviewer simply doesn't like?

eecc 5y ago
Well, as anyone can and will publish, it will be stuffed with junk, porn, trash of all sorts, so my plan was to implement a filter to ignore any data published outside of one’s WOT. Furthermore, a user searching for “reviewed” data and papers would normally filter for items with enough “endorsement” metadata items signed by known WOT actors. I haven’t figured a mechanism to prevent “review rings”, although being totally transparent it should be easy to spot them.

westurner 5y ago

"Help compare Comment and Annotation services: moderation, spam, notifications, configurability" executablebooks/meta#102 https://github.com/executablebooks/meta/discussions/102 https://github.com/executablebooks/meta/discussions/102 : > jupyter-comment supports a number of commenting services [...]. In helping users decide which commenting and annotation services to include on their pages and commit to maintaining, could we discuss criteria for assessment and current features of services? > Possible features for comparison: > * Content author can delete / hide > * Content author can report / block > * Comments / annotations are screened by spam-fighting service > * Content / author can label as e.g. toxic > * Content author receives notification of new comments > * Content author can require approval before user-contributed content is publicly-visible > * Content author may allow comments for a limited amount of time (probably more relevant to BlogPostings) > * Content author may simultaneously denounce censorship in all it's forms while allowing previously-published works to languish #ForScience

westurner 5y ago
FWIW, archiving repo2docker-compatible git repos with a DOI attached to a git tag, is possible with JupyterLite: > JupyterLite is a JupyterLab distribution that runs entirely in the browser built from the ground-up using JupyterLab components and extensions With JupyterLite, you can build a static archive of a repo2docker-like environment so that the ScholarlyArticle notebook or computer modern latex css, its SoftwareRelease dependencies, and possibly also the Datasets can be run in a browser tab with WASM. HTML + JS + WASM